Williams v. Vidmar et al

Filing 20

AMENDED COMPLAINT (First) against all defendants. Filed byStephen J. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Theriot, Kevin) (Filed on 1/3/2005)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Benjamin W. Bull, Arizona State Bar No. 009940
Joshua W. Carden, Arizona State Bar No. 021698 (appearing PHV)
Alliance Defense Fund
15333 N. Pima Rd., Suite 165
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Kevin H. Theriot, Missouri State Bar No. 55733 (appearing PHV)
Alliance Defense Fund
15660 W. 135th St.
Olathe, KS 66062
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Robert H. Tyler, California State Bar No. 179572
Alliance Defense Fund
38760 Sky Canyon Drive, Suite B
Murietta, CA 92563
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

15

Terry L. Thompson, California State Bar No. 199870
Law Offices of Terry L. Thompson
P.O. Box 1346
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
(designated local counsel)

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephen J. Williams

12
13
14

17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19

STEPHEN J. WILLIAMS,
CASE NO. 5:04-CV-4946 JW PVT

20

Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
PATRICIA VIDMAR, Principal of Stevens
Creek School, WILLIAM BRAGG,
Superintendent of Cupertino Union School
District, PEARL CHENG, BEN LIAO,
JOSEPHINE LUCEY, GARY MCCUE,
GEORGE TYSON, Board members of
Cupertino Union School District, in their
official capacities only,
Defendants.
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 1

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

1
2

Comes now the plaintiff, Stephen J. Williams, by and through counsel, pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and against the Defendants avers the following:

3

I.

4

INTRODUCTION

5

1.

This case is about the First Amendment rights of Stephen Williams, a public

6

school teacher and orthodox Christian. The Defendants have censored Mr. Williams’ choices of

7

supplemental handouts – chiefly excerpts of primary source documents from America’s founding

8

era, or from state constitutions – containing religious content because Mr. Williams is a

9

Christian.

Defendants have ordered Mr. Williams (but no other current teacher) – not to

10

distribute any supplemental handout unless it appears on a list of authorized handouts that

11

applies only to Mr. Williams. This is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

12

United States Constitution for which Mr. Williams seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,

13

costs and attorneys’ fees.

14

II.

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

2.

This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and

17

Fourteenth Amendments; and under federal law, particularly 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 42

18

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

19
20

3.

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

21
22
23
24

This Court has original jurisdiction over these federal claims by operation of 28

4.

This Court has authority to issue the requested declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2201.
5.

This Court has authority to issue the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §

1343(a)(3).

25

6.

This Court is authorized to award attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

26

7.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in the Northern District of California

27

because this claim arose there, and the parties reside within the District.

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 2

1

III.

2

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

3

8.

Pursuant to L.R. 3-2(e) & 3-5, this case is a civil rights case, in a non-excepted

4

category, suitable for assignment to the San Jose division because the civil action arose in Santa

5

Clara County.

6

IV.

7

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES

8

9.

Plaintiff Stephen J. Williams is a resident of Mountain View, California.

9

10.

Defendant Patricia Vidmar is Principal of Stevens Creek School, within the

10

Cupertino Union School District. Among other things, this Defendant is responsible for setting

11

the policies at Stevens Creek School and implementing the policies of Stevens Creek School and

12

the Cupertino Union School District.

13

11.

Defendant William Bragg is Superintendent of Cupertino Union School District.

14

Among other things, this Defendant is responsible for setting and implementing policies for

15

schools within the Cupertino Union School District.

16

12.

Defendant Pearl Cheng is a member of the Board of Education of the Cupertino

17

Union School District. Among other things, this Defendant is responsible for setting policies for

18

schools within the Cupertino Union School District.

19

13.

Defendant Ben Liao is a member of the Board of Education of the Cupertino

20

Union School District. Among other things, this Defendant is responsible for setting policies for

21

schools within the Cupertino Union School District.

22

14.

Defendant Josephine Lucey is a member of the Board of Education of the

23

Cupertino Union School District. Among other things, this Defendant is responsible for setting

24

policies for schools within the Cupertino Union School District.

25

15.

Defendant Gary McCue is a member of the Board of Education of the Cupertino

26

Union School District. Among other things, this Defendant is responsible for setting policies for

27

schools within the Cupertino Union School District.

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 3

1

16.

Defendant George Tyson is a member of the Board of Education of the Cupertino

2

Union School District. Among other things, this Defendant is responsible for setting policies for

3

schools within the Cupertino Union School District.

4

17.

Each Defendant is sued in his or her official capacities only.

5

V.

6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7
8
9

Background
18.

Plaintiff Stephen J. Williams currently teaches fifth grade at Stevens Creek

School (“the School”), which is part of Cupertino Union School District (“the District”).

10

19.

Defendant Patricia Vidmar is the Principal of the School.

11

20.

Mr. Williams has taught for eight years in the District.

12

21.

Mr. Williams has taught fifth grade for five years.

13

22.

History and Social Studies are among the subjects that Mr. Williams teaches the

14

fifth grade students at the School.

15

Conflicts Over Discussions About Religion in the Classroom

16
17
18

23.

Mr. Williams is a Christian, and generally adheres to orthodox Christian beliefs as

prescribed by the Bible.
24.

One of Mr. Williams’ Christian beliefs is that he must follow all of the rules of

19

the school and district, and to comply with federal and state law regarding the discussion of

20

religion in public schools

21
22

25.

Mr. Williams understands and admits that he is not permitted to “proselytize” or

seek to convert his students to Christian beliefs.

23

26.

Principal Vidmar is aware that Mr. Williams is a Christian.

24

27.

In June 2003, Principal Vidmar expressed her concern that Mr. Williams, as a

25

Christian, would allow his faith to intrude into the classroom. She did not mention specific

26

incidents or complaints involving Mr. Williams or his faith.

27
28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 4

1

28.

Mr. Williams expressed to Principal Vidmar his understanding that he is not

2

allowed to “proselytize” his personal religious beliefs to students when acting as a public school

3

teacher.

4
5

29.

Williams “Why do we say ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance?”

6
7

In September 2003, at the beginning of class, a School student asked Mr.

30.

Mr. Williams facilitated a short discussion among the students about the reasons

for “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

8

31.

Mr. Williams did not attempt to influence the students’ beliefs regarding religion.

9

32.

Shortly after school ended on that day, Principal Vidmar entered the classroom

10

and asked Mr. Williams “why God was being taught” during class.

11
12

33.

facilitated a short discussion on the subject of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

13
14

Mr. Williams explained that a student had asked a question and that he had

34.

In October 2003, during a lesson on Christopher Columbus, the textbook

referenced Columbus as a “missionary” seeking to spread Christianity.

15

35.

A School student asked Mr. Williams: “What’s a Christian?”

16

36.

Mr. Williams replied: “Someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

17

37.

Shortly after school ended on that day, Principal Vidmar entered the classroom

18

and asked Mr. Williams: “What are you doing talking about Jesus Christ?”

19

38.

Mr. Williams explained that he had responded to a student’s direct question

20

regarding content in the textbook and did not attempt to influence the students’ beliefs regarding

21

Christianity.

22
23

39.

curriculum-related literature for his students to understand the topic under study.

24
25

Mr. Williams frequently supplements the district-approved textbooks with

40.

It is not uncommon for teachers within the District to supplement District

textbooks with curriculum-related literature and other handouts.

26

41.

Mr. Williams chooses supplemental literature that, in his judgment as a

27

professional educator, satisfy the California History-Social Science content standards for the fifth

28

grade.
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 5

1
2
3

42.

Many teachers employed by the District supplement the textbooks for each

subject with curriculum-related literature and other handouts.
43.

In his judgment as a professional educator, Mr. Williams cannot satisfy the

4

California History-Social Science content standards for the fifth grade if he does not supplement

5

the textbooks with historical literature and other appropriate handouts.

6

44.

In November 2003, Mr. Williams distributed to his students a supplemental

7

activity assignment that he had used in previous years in conjunction with the “The Lion, the

8

Witch, and the Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis, which is on the school’s approved reading list.

9

45.

One of the nine possible activities in the supplement – Mr. Williams asked the

10

students to choose five – asked students to discuss Mr. Lewis’ intention to write the book as a

11

Christian allegory.

12

46.

Aware of Principal Vidmar’s quick reaction to the student-initiated discussion of

13

“under God” and the mention of “Jesus Christ” in Mr. Williams’ classroom, Mr. Williams

14

proactively gave a copy of the activity assignment to Principal Vidmar.

15

47.

Visibly annoyed, Principal Vidmar asked Mr. Williams: “What are you doing?”

16

48.

Mr. Williams explained that he had used the same handout in previous years with

17

no complaints.

18

49.

Principal Vidmar then approved the C.S. Lewis activity assignment.

19

50.

In late November 2003, aware of Principal Vidmar’s quick reaction to the

20

student-initiated discussion of “under God,” the mention of “Jesus Christ,” and the C.S. Lewis

21

activity assignment, Mr. Williams informed Principal Vidmar that he planned to distribute a

22

“Myth/Fact” handout about Thanksgiving from The History Channel website and a handout

23

containing President Bush’s Thanksgiving proclamation.

24
25
26

51.

Because of Principal Vidmar’s reactions in the past, Mr. Williams also invited

Principal Vidmar to observe the lesson if she so chose.
52.

Principal Vidmar approved the lesson and came to observe the lesson where Mr.

27

Williams distributed these handouts. Mr. Williams went through the “Myth/Fact” handout with

28

the students, and then read portions of President Bush’s Thanksgiving proclamation.
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 6

1

53.

In December 2003 and January 2004, Mr. Williams presented a series of lessons

2

on the various winter holidays. Mr. Williams instructed his students that the origin of the word

3

“holiday” comes from the words “holy day.” Each student was to pick a holiday and write a

4

report about it. Mr. Williams facilitated student discussion of each holiday – Ramadan, Dewali,

5

Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Christmas, and the Chinese New Year – usually one discussion per day.

6
7
8

54.

Mr. Williams received no complaints from Principal Vidmar nor anyone else

about the holiday assignment, despite the religious connotations of several of the holidays.
55.

In April 2004, Mr. Williams distributed an Easter Card to school staff and fellow

9

teachers. The Card contained ideas obtained from an education website for ways teachers could

10

inform students about the Easter holiday in the classroom without violating the Establishment

11

Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

12
13
14

56.

Mr. Williams prepared an Easter activity sheet for students, with ideas similar to

those found in the Easter Card, and submitted it to Principal Vidmar for approval.
57.

On April 7, 2004, Principal Vidmar denied the Easter activity sheet via email,

15

stating that “Easter and Christianity should not be part of your classroom instruction or

16

discussions.”

17

58.

In the same email, Principal Vidmar for the first time wrongly accused Mr.

18

Williams of “being insensitive to our diverse religious community by insisting on focusing on

19

your own beliefs in the classroom.”

20
21
22

59.

Principal Vidmar provided no specific complaints or examples in the email to

support her accusation.
60.

On May 6, 2004, Mr. Williams provided students with a handout containing the

23

history of the National Day of Prayer on one side of the page, and President Bush’s proclamation

24

of a Day of Prayer on the other.

25
26
27
28

61.

A parent with a student in Mr. Wiliams’ class emailed a complaint about this

handout to Mr. Williams and to Principal Vidmar.
62.

Mr. Williams responded to the parent via email, explaining that he had included

the document during the class lessons about George Washington and the first Continental
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 7

1

Congress as an example of the historical integration of prayer into the society of the founding

2

era.

3

63.

On May 11, 2004, Principal Vidmar issued a memo to Mr. Williams stating, inter

4

alia, that “[i]t is not appropriate for you to be sending home material of a religious nature to your

5

students and their families.” The memo also states: “I . . . am, hereby, directing you to stop

6

sending out materials of a religious nature with your students. I am directing you to provide me

7

with an ‘advance’ copy of materials you will be sending home at least two days prior to their

8

being sent out so I can make sure that the materials will not be of concern to the parents or

9

violate the separation of religion and public education.” (emphasis added).

10

64.

During the meeting with Principal Vidmar where Mr. Williams received the May

11

11, 2004 memo, Mr. Williams expressed his continued desire to follow all of the rules of the

12

school and district, and to comply with federal and state law regarding the discussion of religion

13

in public schools.

14

65.

On May 14, 2004, Mr. Williams informed Principal Vidmar that his students were

15

experiencing confusion over the “separation of church and state.” He requested permission to

16

distribute a number of handouts to his students as part of a forty-five (45) minute lesson to

17

demonstrate the founder’s beliefs about religion, and how those beliefs influenced the way the

18

United States government was formed. These documents included:

19
20

a. “American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity” by
John Adams;

21

b. “What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible” – author unknown;

22

c. Letter, “To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of

23

Massachusetts” (October 1, 1798), by John Adams,

24

d. “Religious Clauses in State Constitutions” – author unknown;

25

e. “John Adam’s Diary,” (selected entries Feb. 22, 1756 – Aug. 24, 1796);

26

f. “George Washington’s Prayer Journal,” from William J. Johnson, George

27

Washington: the Christian 24-35 (1919);

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 8

1

g. “The Conversion of Quaker Isaac Potts to the Cause of Patriotism through the

2

Observation of George Washington’s Prayer,” from Rev. Nathanial Randolph

3

Snowden, Diary and Remembrances;

4

h. “George Washington’s Adopted Daughter Discusses Washington’s Religious

5

Character,” by Nelly Custis-Lewis;

6

i. “The First Prayer in Congress,” by Jacob Duche (Sept. 7, 1774); and

7

j. “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” by William Blackstone (selected

8

excerpts).

9

66.

Each of these historical documents contains religious references.

10

67.

Each of these historical documents has non-religious, educational value.

11

68.

None of these documents contains exhortations for the students to follow

12
13
14

Christianity or Mr. Williams’ personal religious beliefs.
69.

Mr. Williams did not intend to distribute all of these documents to students as part

of the short lesson he was preparing.

15

70.

16

these documents.

17

71.

18
19

On May 14, 2004, Principal Vidmar denied permission to distribute or discuss

In accordance with Principal Vidmar’s instructions, Mr. Williams did not handout

or discuss these documents.
72.

On May 18, 2004, Mr. Williams emailed Principal Vidmar seeking permission to

20

distribute three documents as part of a short lesson on the how the founder’s religious beliefs

21

influenced the formation of our government. These included excerpts from

22

a. the Declaration of Independence,

23

b. William Penn’s “Frame of Government”; and

24

c. Samuel Adams’ “The Rights of the Colonists.”

25

73.

Each of these historical documents contains religious references.

26

74.

Each of these historical documents have non-religious, historical value.

27

75.

None of these documents contains exhortations for the students to follow

28

Christianity or Mr. Williams’ personal religious beliefs.
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 9

1

76.

In the May 18, 2004 email, Mr. Williams reiterated to Principal Vidmar his desire

2

for the students to understand why many of our historical documents contain religious references

3

and how the founders’ religious beliefs influenced the formation of our government.

4

Williams also expressed his feeling that everything religious was being censored from his

5

curriculum because of his personal beliefs. Mr. Williams also repeated his desire to follow all of

6

the rules of the school and district, and to comply with federal and state law regarding the

7

discussion of religion in public schools.

8

77.

Mr.

In a memo dated May 19, 2004, Principal Vidmar denied Mr. Williams’ request to

9

distribute the three documents, stating, inter alia, that “[t]he materials you submitted yesterday

10

are once again of religious nature and are not appropriate to be used with your fifth grade

11

students because the district honors separation of church and state in school.”

12
13
14
15
16

78.

In the May 19, 2004 memo, Principal Vidmar also instructed Mr. Williams to

submit his weekly lesson plans to her for the remainder of the school year.
79.

On May 21, 2004, Principal Vidmar called for a meeting with Mr. Williams to be

held on May 27, 2004.
80.

On May 27, 2004, Principal Vidmar issued a memo ordering him, inter alia, not

17

to emphasize his religion in the classroom and to “cease seeking Christian materials to present as

18

supplementary materials and resources” for his students.” The memo also states: “If any future

19

incidents occur, you will be subject to formal discipline up to and including dismissal.”

20

81.

On June 22, 2004, Mr. Williams responded to the May 27, 2004 memo by

21

pointing out that he had never actually distributed to students any of the documents referenced in

22

the memo except for the National Day of Prayer handout. Mr. Williams also repeated his desire

23

to follow all of the rules of the school and district, and to comply with federal and state law

24

regarding the discussion of religion in public schools.

25

82.

On September 29, 2004, at Mr. Williams’ “Goals conference,” Principal Vidmar

26

issued a packet of materials to Mr. Williams and directed that Mr. William’s future social studies

27

handouts must only come from that packet of materials.

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 10

1

83.

At that same “Goals conference,” Principal Vidmar and District employee Pat

2

McCreary made it clear that Mr. Williams could be subject to dismissal if he distributed

3

handouts other than those contained in the packet of materials Mr. Williams had just received.

4

84.

Since approximately May 14, 2004, Principal Vidmar has systematically rejected

5

Mr. Williams’ proposed lesson plans and proposed supplemental handouts referenced herein that

6

contain information about the role religion played in the founding of our country.

7
8

85.

Principal Vidmar rejected the proposed lesson plans and proposed supplemental

handouts referenced herein because of their religious content.

9

86.

10

Principal Vidmar.

11

87.

12
13
14
15
16

Mr. Williams has not distributed any document or taught any lesson rejected by

Other teachers at the School are not required to submit all of their lesson plans

and supplemental handouts to Principal Vidmar in advance.
88.

Other teachers at the School are not required to use supplemental handouts only

from a packet issued by Principal Vidmar.
89.

Less than five percent of all of Mr. Williams’ supplemental handouts actually

distributed throughout the school year contain references to religion.

17

90.

Mr. Williams does not emphasize religion in his classroom.

18

91.

Other than the religious references that occasionally occur in the textbook

19

readings, student discussions, his prepared lesson plans, and supplemental handouts during the

20

school year, Mr. Williams does not distribute religious material to students.

21

92.

Other than religious references that occasionally occur in the textbook readings,

22

student questions, his prepared lesson plans, and supplemental handouts during the school year,

23

Mr. Williams does not discuss religion with students when acting in his capacity as a public

24

school teacher.

25

93.

Mr. Williams does not discuss his personal religious beliefs with students when

26

acting in his capacity as a public school teacher.

27

California State Law

28

94.

California Education Code § 51511 states:

AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 11

1
2
3
4

Nothing in this code shall be construed to prevent, or exclude from the public
schools, references to religion or references to or the use of religious literature,
dance, music, theatre, and visual arts or other things having a religious
significance when such references or uses do not constitute instruction in religious
principles or aid to any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose and
when such references or uses are incidental to or illustrative of matters properly
included in the course of study.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

95.

On its face, California Educational Code § 51511 permits, inter alia, “religious

literature” and “other things having a religious significance” as part of the school curriculum.
California’s History-Social Science Content Standards
96.

The California Department of Education has promulgated content standards for

fifth grade curriculum taught in California public schools, including the District’s schools.
97.

The District’s schools are required to educate fifth grade students according to the

State’s content standards.
98.

The California Department of Education has published the content standards

governing history and the social sciences as part of a book entitled “History-Social Science
Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten through Grade Twelve” (“Framework”).
99.

In that book, the History-Social Science Content Standards for Grade Five are

entitled “United States History and Geography: Making a New Nation.” A true and correct copy
of these standards (including the cover pages of the Framework) is attached as Exhibit A.
100.

The introduction to the History-Social Science Content Standards for Grade Five

state: “This course focuses on one of the most remarkable stories in history: the creation of a new
nation . . . founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage. . . .” Ex. A at 64.
101.

This nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage.

102.

Standard 5.2.2 states “Explain . . . the reasons Europeans chose to explore and

colonize the world (e.g., the Spanish Reconquista, the Protestant Reformation, the Counter
Reformation).” Id. at 71.
103.

Standard 5.4 requires that the “Student understand the political, religious, social,

and economic institutions that evolved in the colonial area.” Id. at 72.

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 12

1

104.

Standard 5.4.2 states: “Identify the major individuals and groups responsible for

2

the founding of the various colonies and the reasons for their founding (e.g., . . . William Penn,

3

Pennsylvania. . . .).” Id.

4

105.

Standard 5.4.3 states: “Describe the religious aspects of the earliest colonies (e.g.,

5

Puritanism in Massachusetts, Anglicanism in Virginia, Catholicism in Maryland, Quakerism in

6

Pennsylvania).” Id.

7

106.

Standard 5.4.4 states: “Identify the significance and leaders of the First Great

8

Awakening, which marked a shift in religious ideas, practices, and allegiances in the colonial

9

period, the growth of religious toleration, and free exercise of religions.” Id.

10
11

107.

and interests brought about the Revolution. . . .” Id.

12
13

108.

109.

110.

18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27

The analysis skills under “Research, Evidence, and Point of View” require that:
1.
2.

17

21

The Framework contains a list of “analysis skills” in conjunction with the content

standards. Ex. A at 75.

16

20

Standard 5.7.6 states: “Know the songs that express American ideals (e.g.,

‘America the Beautiful,’ ‘The Star Spangled Banner’).”

14
15

Standard 5.5.1 states: “Understand how political, religious, and economic ideas

3.

Students differentiate between primary and secondary sources.
Students pose relevant questions about events they encounter in historical
documents, eyewitness accounts, oral histories, letters, diaries, artifacts,
photographs, maps, artworks, and architectures.
Students distinguish fact from fiction by comparing documentary sources
on historical figures and events with fictionalized characters and events.

Id.
111.

On their face, the California History-Social Science Content Standards require,

inter alia, teaching about religion’s influence on society and the founding of this country.
112.

Appendix C of the Framework discusses teaching about religion in public schools.

Id. at 203.
113.

Appendix F of the Framework discusses the importance of and encourages the use

of primary source documents. Id. at 214.

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 13

1

Cupertino Union School District Content Standards

2

114.

The District has promulgated content standards for fifth grade curriculum taught

3

in District schools.

4

115.

Standard 4 under “United States History and Geography: Making a New Nation”

5

requires that: “Students understand the political, religious, social, and economic institutions that

6

evolved in the colonial era.”

7
8

116.

On their face, the District’s content standards require, inter alia, that students

receive objective instruction about religion.

9

VI.

10

STATEMENTS OF LAW

11

117.

Each and all of the acts alleged herein were done by Defendants under the color

12

and pretense of state law, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, usages, and policies of

13

Cupertino Union School District, Santa Clara County, and the State of California.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

118.

Teachers do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v.

Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).
119.

Teachers have academic freedom rights within the reasonable limits of the state’s

education content standards.
120.

Defendants have a duty to set education policies and local content standards in

accordance with the state’s education content standards.
121.

Defendants’ policy and/or practice restricts Christian teachers such as Mr.

Williams from handing out any documents containing religious references.
122.

By their policy and/or practice of restricting Christian teachers from distributing

any handouts containing religious references, Defendants have failed to meet their duty.
123.

Unless and until the enforcement of the Defendants’ religiously discriminatory

25

policy and/or practice is enjoined, the Plaintiff will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable harm

26

to his federal constitutional rights.

27
28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 14

1

VII.

2

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

124.

The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference.
125.

The Equal Protection Clause requires that the government treat similarly-situated

persons equally.
126.

The Defendants allowed similarly-situated teachers to include religious

expression in their lessons and supplemental handouts.
127.

The Defendants do not require similarly-situated teachers to submit their lesson

plans and supplemental handouts in advance.
128.

The Defendants do not limit similarly-situated teachers’ choices of supplemental

handouts as they have limited Mr. Williams’ choices.
129.

The Defendants have treated Mr. Williams differently based on the exercise of his

fundamental right to free speech and because he is a Christian.
130.

Defendants have no compelling interest to justify their unequal treatment of Mr.

Williams.
131.

The Defendants’ policy and/or practice therefore violates the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth
hereinafter in the prayer for relief.

22

VIII.

23

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
SPEECH UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

24
25
26
27
28

132.

The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference.
133.

Speech about religion is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 15

1

134.

Speech about religion is necessary to fulfill the state teaching standards.

2

135.

Defendants have excluded Mr. Williams’ speech because of its religious content

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

and viewpoint.
136.

By this exclusion, Defendants have, inter alia, limited Mr. Williams’ academic

freedom – his ability to speak and teach freely in accordance with the state educational standards.
137.

The Defendants have no compelling government interest to justify their

discriminatory treatment of the Plaintiff.
138.

The Defendants’ actions therefore violate the Free Speech Clause of the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to the states under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth
hereinafter in the prayer for relief.

13

IX.

14

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – VAGUENESS

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

139.

The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference.
140.

Defendants’ policy and/or practice restricts Christian teachers from handing out

documents containing religious references.
141.

Defendants’ policy and practice do not give adequate notice as to what conduct is

prohibited.
142.

Defendants’ policy and practice vest unfettered discretion in school officials to

control teacher speech based on its content and viewpoint and the religious views of the teacher.
143.

Defendants’ policy and practice contradict state law.

144.

Defendants have no compelling interest to justify their policy and practice.

145.

Defendants’ policy and practice are therefore void for vagueness in violation of

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth
hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 16

1

X.

2

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

3
4
5

146.

The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference.

6

147.

The Defendants’ policy and practice excludes Mr. Williams’ religious expression.

7

148.

The Defendants’ policy requires that school officials systematically and regularly

8

scrutinize historical documents and teachers’ religious view to determine whether the officials

9

consider the documents to have religious content that the officials consider impermissible within

10

their school if distributed by religious teachers.

11

149.

The Defendants’ policy demonstrates impermissible hostility towards religion.

12

150.

Defendants have no compelling interest that would justify their hostility towards

13
14

religion.
151.

The Defendants’ policy therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First

15

Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to the states under the

16

Fourteenth Amendment.

17
18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth
hereinafter in the prayer for relief.

19

XI.

20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief:

22

A. That this Court preserve the pre-litigation status quo by preliminarily enjoining the

23

Defendants from ceasing their policy and/or practice of allowing teachers to distribute

24

curriculum-related supplemental handouts;

25

B. That this Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from enforcing

26

their policy and/or practice of suppressing Christian teachers’ use of lessons and curriculum-

27

related supplements on the basis that they contain religious content or references;

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 17

1

C. That this Court enter declaratory judgment stating that the Defendants’ policy and/or

2

practice is facially unconstitutional and violates the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed under the

3

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

4

D. If the policy and/or practice is not declared facially unconstitutional, that this Court

5

enter a declaratory judgment stating that the policy and/or practice is unconstitutional as applied

6

to the Plaintiff and violates the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth

7

Amendments to the United States Constitution;

8
9

E. That this Court award Plaintiff his costs and expenses of this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable law;

10
11

F. That this Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just,
and proper;

12

G. That this Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights and other legal relations of the

13

parties to the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declarations shall have the

14

force and effect of final judgment; and

15
16

H. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter as necessary to enforce the Court’s
orders.

17

Respectfully submitted on this, the 3rd day of January, 2005,

18

Attorney for Plaintiff,

19
20

By:

21

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

22
23

/s/Kevin H. Theriot

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the
named parties, there is no such interest to report.

24

Respectfully submitted on this, the 3rd day of January, 2005.

25
26
27

By:
//

28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 18

/s/Kevin H. Theriot

VERIFICATION

1
2

I, Stephen J. Williams, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of

3

California, have read the foregoing Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive

4

Relief and declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

5
6
7

foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 3rd day of January, 2005

8
9

By:

/s/ Stephen J. Williams

10
11
12

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

13

Pursuant to the rules and procedures governing electronic filing, I, the undersigned

14

attorney for Plaintiff Stephen J. Williams, attest that the content of this document is acceptable to

15

signatory Stephen J. Williams.

16

Dated this 3rd day of January, 2005
By:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 19

/s/Kevin H. Theriot