Valente et al v. French et al

Filing 117

MODIFIED STIPULATED JUDGMENT: re 116 NOTICE of Stipulated Judgment. Signed by Judge Christina Reiss on 2/16/2023. (sjl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
MICHAEL VALENTE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

DANIEL M. FRENCH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2023 FIB I 6 AH 9: Zi

Case No. 2:20-cv-00135

MODIFIED STIPULATED JUDGMENT
A.

The Parties' Final Stipulation.
Plaintiffs, School Defendants, and State Defendants hereby AGREE and

STIPULATE:
1.

The Valente, Gallo, and Buckley families ("Plaintiffs") brought this lawsuit

alleging that Two Rivers Supervisory Union and Lauren Fierman, in her official capacity
as its superintendent; Ludlow Mount Holly Unified Union School District and Paul
Orzechowski, in his official capacity as its chair; Greater Rutland County Supervisory
Union and Christopher Sell, in his official capacity as its superintendent; Rutland Town
School District and Tina Keshava, in her official capacity as its chair; Windsor Southeast
Supervisory Union and Christine Bourne, in her official capacity as its superintendent;
Hartland School District and Nicole Buck, in her official capacity as its chair
(collectively, the "School Defendants"); and Daniel French, the Agency of Education,
and the State Board of Education (collectively, the "State Defendants") violated their
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights through exclusion from tuition benefits provided
under Vermont statute. See 16 V.S.A. §§ 821-828. 1

1

The Final Settlement Agreement includes individuals and entities that are not parties to this
case. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), when a public official ceases to hold public office while
an action is pending, that officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party. To the extent

2.

The Vermont Supreme Court previously held that "a school district violates

Chapter I, Article 3 [of the Vermont Constitution] when it reimburses tuition for a
sectarian school under § 822 in the absence of adequate safeguards against the use of
such funds for religious worship." Chittenden Town Sch. Dist. v. Dep't ofEduc., 738
A.2d 539, 541-42 (Vt. 1999).
3.

Plaintiffs allege that School Defendants and State Defendants excluded

them from tuition benefits because of the "adequate safeguards" requirement articulated
by the Vermont Supreme Court in Chittenden.
4.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously explained that denying public benefits

because of religious status or character violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S.
Constitution's First Amendment. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,
137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017); Espinoza v. Montana Dep 't ofRevenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020).
5.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held, among other holdings, that "a

State's antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members
of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their
religious exercise." Carson v. Makin, 142 S. Ct. 1987, 1998 (2022).
6.

The parties agree that the U.S. Supreme Court's Carson decision renders

Vermont's "adequate safeguards" requirement unconstitutional.
7.

The parties agree that the U.S. Supreme Court's Carson decision prohibits

the enforcement of the "adequate safeguards" requirement to deny or restrict payment of
tuition to independent schools based on their religious status, affiliation, beliefs, exercise,
or activities.

B.

The Court's Judgment and Enforcement of the Parties' Final Settlement
Agreement and Final Stipulation.
The court hereby enters a Modified Stipulated Judgment pursuant to the parties'

Final Settlement Agreement and their Final Stipulation as follows:

that the parties seek to treat the Agency of Education as a de facto defendant, they may do so as
Defendant French is a party.
2

1.

The School Defendants and State Defendants, their officers, agents, and

assigns shall not enforce the "adequate safeguards" requirement to deny or restrict
payment of tuition to independent schools based on their religious status, affiliation,
beliefs, exercise, or activities.
2.

School Defendants shall provide notice to tuition-eligible resident families

described in the parties' Final Settlement Agreement informing them of the U.S. Supreme
Court's Carson decision.
3.

Defendants Ludlow Mount Holly Unified Union School District, Rutland

Town School District, and Hartland School District shall reimburse families for tuition
paid by them pursuant to the parties' Final Settlement Agreement.
4.

Defendant Ludlow Mount Holly Unified Union School District shall pay

the Valente family Plaintiffs their full tuition benefit for the 2022-2023 school year
pursuant to the parties' Final Settlement Agreement.
5.

Defendant Hartland School District shall pay the Buckley family Plaintiffs

their full tuition benefit for the 2022-23 school year pursuant to the parties' Final
Settlement Agreement.
6.

The School Defendants shall process and honor tuition requests and

reimbursements pursuant to the parties' Final Settlement Agreement and applicable law.
7.

The State Defendants shall post and take reasonable steps to maintain the

September 13th letter, referenced in paragraph 6 of the parties' Final Settlement
Agreement, on the website for the Agency of Education for a period of five (5) years
from the date of execution of the Final Settlement Agreement.
8.

This Modified Stipulated Judgment and the terms of the parties' Final

Settlement Agreement resolve all claims made by Plaintiffs in this action, including
Plaintiffs' claims for attorney's fees, expenses, and costs, as well as any other claims
Plaintiffs could have brought against School Defendants and State Defendants based on
the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
9.

The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce or modify this Modified

Stipulated Judgment. In the event that any party fails to comply with this Modified
3

Stipulated Judgment, any adverse party may file a motion with this court seeking its
enforcement.

SO ORDERED.

,,,..__

Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this /

6

day of February, 2023.

Christina Reiss, District Judge
United States District Court

4