L&S HOME>>>Newton Overview>>> School Board Answer
Newton v. Rockingham County Schools
The Constitution in
the Classroom
PAGINATION AND FORMATTING MAY DIFFER FROM ORIGINAL
GO TO ANALYSIS OF THIS DOCUMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Harrisonburg Division
JEFFRY NEWTON, et als,
Plaintiffs,
V. Civil Action No. 5:OOCV00003
C. JAMES SLYE, et als,
Defendants.
JOINT ANSWER
PRESENTING DEFENSES UNDER RULE 12(b)
C. James Slye, John H. Kidd, and the Rockingham County School Board (School Board), for their joint answer presenting defenses under Rules 12(b)(1), (3) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, state as follows:
First Defense
The corporate or organizational plaintiffs lack standing with respect to some or all of the claims or causes of action alleged in the Complaint.
Second Defense
The student plaintiffs lack standing with respect to some or all of the claims or causes of action alleged in the Complaint.
Third Defense
The Complaint fails to state a claim against one or more of the Defendants upon which declarative, injunctive, monetary or any other relief can be granted.
Fourth Defense
The individual defendants, C. James Slye and John H. Kidd, enjoy qualified immunity as to some or all of the claims or causes of action alleged in the Complaint.
Fifth Defense
Plaintiff Newton and the plaintiff students have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Dr. Kidd had reached no final conclusion, and the School Board had made no decision at all. Mr. Newton or the students previously could have had an audience with Dr. Kidd and/or the School Board. In fact, an orderly administrative process had been initiated and was being pursued when this lawsuit was precipitously filed. Annexed as Exhibits A, B, and C are true copies of letters referencing several of the opportunities available for administrative review.
Sixth Defense
While asserting and preserving all of their defenses, including those which may become available during litigation, the Defendants respond as follows to the allegations of each of the corresponding paragraphs of the Complaint:
1. It is admitted that Mr. Newton currently is a teacher at Spotswood High School, Rockingham County, Virginia, and that he at some time has displayed a flyer outside his classroom door, in the hallway of Spotswood High School. It is admitted that Mr. Slye requested and directed Mr. Newton to modify the time, place, and/or manner of the display; however, at no time has there been any threat of termination with respect to compliance with the directive. In contrast to the allegations, Mr. Slye actually confirmed to Mr. Newton that Mr. Newton could employ the item(s) in an appropriate way, in his classroom with his pupils. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 1.
2. The Defendants deny that either the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Virginia or any statute grants the rights or relief asserted in this proceeding, under the allegations of the Complaint.
3. The Defendants assert that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claim.
4. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 4.
5. Defendants incorporate by reference their response to the allegations of paragraph 1. They do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 5.
6. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 6.
7. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 7.
8. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 8.
9. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 9.
10. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 10.
11. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 11, except it is admitted that an Erin Johnson is a Spotswood High School student.
12. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 12, except it is admitted that a Joshua Dove, Chris Dalrymple, and Cecilia Heneberry are Spotswood High School students.
13. It is admitted that Mr. Slye currently is the principal of Spotswood High School and has overall responsibility for the methods, means, and operations of Spotswood High School, including but not limited to the performance of teachers. The Defendants assert that Mr. Slye has no liability, in any capacity, to any of the Plaintiffs. The remaining allegations of paragraph 13 are denied.
14. It is admitted that Dr. Kidd is the Division Superintendent of Rockingham County Public Schools; his responsibilities are prescribed by law and by Board policy. Dr. Kidd does not make policies. The Defendants assert that Dr. Kidd has no liability, in any capacity, to any of the Plaintiffs. The remaining allegations of paragraph 14 are denied.
15. It is admitted that the School Board of Rockingham County, Virginia, is a public body corporate which has the overall responsibility for the supervision of the local public schools in Rockingham County, Virginia. The remaining allegations of paragraph 15 are denied.
16. The Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 16. It is denied, however, that Mr. Newton had or acquired any legal right to use the School Board's property for his own personally preferred displays, divorced from considerations and supervision pertaining to authority over school curriculum-related matters. Under the Fourth Circuit's en banc Boring decision and the Supreme Court's Kuhlmeier and Fraser decisions, among other authorities, the Defendants assert that they have authority over any and all curriculum-related matters and may take supervisory steps to avoid confusing impressionable youth or appearing to endorse a teacher's actions.
17. The text/graphics of any flyer speaks for itself. Defendants do not currently have sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 17.
18. Any text/graphics of a flyer speaks for itself. The Defendants deny that the listed titles include all of the text in the referenced item. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.
19. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 19.
20. It is admitted that Mr. Slye, at some time, signed a purchase order and that a flyer was displayed by Mr. Newton some time outside of his door, in the hallway of Spotswood High School. Defendants do have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 20.
21. It is admitted that there were various communications. The text of any communication speaks for itself. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 21.
22. The Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations of paragraph 21. While it is admitted that Mr. Slye became aware of some communications, the remaining allegations and characterizations of paragraph 22 are denied.
23. The Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations of paragraph 21. While it is admitted that Mr. Slye became aware of some communications, the remaining allegations and characterizations of paragraph 23 are denied.
24. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 24.
25. It is admitted that Ms. Michael was one of the parents who contacted Mr. Breeden to inquire about what apparently appeared to her as the school's endorsement of Mr. Newton's actions. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 25, except that it is admitted that there were conversations between Mr. Breeden and Dr. Kidd and between Mr. Slye and Mr. Newton.
26. The Defendants incorporate by reference their previous responses to the allegations of paragraph 21. The Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 26.
27. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 27.
28. It is admitted that Mr. Newton and Mr. Slye met and had various communications. The allegations of paragraph 28 otherwise do not accurately and fully recount or characterize the communications between Mr. Newton and Mr. Slye. The remaining allegations and characterizations of paragraph 28 are denied.
29. It is admitted that Mr. Newton and Mr. Slye met and had various communications. The allegations of paragraph 29 otherwise do not accurately and fully recount or characterize the communications between Mr. Newton and Mr. Slye. The remaining allegations and characterizations of paragraph 29 are denied.
30. It is admitted that there were further communications between Mr. Slye and Mr. Newton, but the allegations of paragraph 30 do not accurately and fully recount or characterize those communications. The text of any communication speaks for itself. The remaining allegations and characterizations of paragraph 30 are denied.
31. The allegations of paragraph 31 do not accurately and fully recount or characterize the communications, and any text of communications speaks for itself. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 3 1, except that Exhibit 4 appears to be a copy of a letter from Mr. Slye to Mr. Newton.
32. The allegations of paragraph 32 are denied.
33. The allegations of paragraph 33 do not accurately and fully recount or characterize the content of Rockingham County Public Schools policy text. The text of any policy speaks for itself, although the School Board retains authority to interpret its own policy. The remaining allegations of paragraph 33 are denied, except that Exhibit 5 appears to be a copy of policy 7.7A-5.
34. It is admitted that there were various communications about the application of School Board Policy 7.7A-5, however, the allegations of paragraph 34 do not accurately and fully recount or characterize those communications. The remaining allegations of paragraph 34 are denied.
35. It is admitted that there were various communications about the use of the hallway side of the classroom doorway, however, the allegations of paragraph 35 do not accurately and fully recount or describe those communications. Mr. Slye did confirm that Mr. Newton could employ the item(s) under appropriate circumstances in his classroom, with his pupils. The remaining allegations of paragraph 35 are denied.
36. It is denied that policy or practice authorized any teacher to use the hallway side of the classroom doorway as a display for whatever the teacher preferred or desired. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 36.
37. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time about what is meant by the abstract phrase "issue of censorship." In the context of the situation at Spotswood High School, the allegations of paragraph 37 are denied.
38. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 38.
39. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 39.
40. It is admitted that there have been communications from and to the ACLU, but the allegations of paragraph 40 do not fully and accurately recount or characterize the communications, the text of which speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of paragraph 40 are denied.
41. Defendants do not have sufficient information or knowledge at this time to admit or deny the allegations about the drafting of a petition, however, it is admitted that there were statements made to the Rockingham County School Board at one of its meetings. The remaining allegations of paragraph 41 are denied.
42. It is admitted that there have been communications from and to the ACLU, but the allegations of paragraph 41 do not accurately and fully recount or characterize the communications. An orderly administrative review process was initiated. The ACLU and Mr. Newton were aware of communications concerning the administrative review, including but not limited to Dr. Kidd's report of January 11, 2000, a true copy of which is annexed as Exhibit D. The remaining allegations of paragraph 41 are denied.
43. It is admitted that there have been communications from the ACLU, but the allegations of paragraph 43 do not fully and accurately describe or characterize the communications. Mr. Newton and the ACLU were aware that an orderly administrative review process had been undertaken. The ACLU received a January 11, 2000 response which stated:
Dear Ms. Glenberg:
Thank you for your December 16 letter.
My understanding is that an internal review will develop more fully the facts that relate to the situation, so it appears premature to engage in any extended factual discussion at this time. I believe that the Division Superintendent, Dr. Kidd, will be making a written report to the Rockingham County School Board, and Mr. Newton will be furnished with a courtesy copy and be afforded the opportunity to have a conversation with the School Board.
We cannot agree with your legal analysis. Nonetheless, I would be interested in your perspective on the application of the Fourth Circuit's Boring precedent. I enclose a copy of the opinion in that case, for ease of your reference.
Thank you, once again, for your time.
Cordially,
Douglas L. Guynn
The remaining allegations of paragraph 43 are denied.
44. The allegations of paragraph 44 are denied.
45. The allegations of paragraph 45 are denied.
46. The allegations of paragraph 46 are denied.
47. The allegations of paragraph 47 are denied.
The Defendants call for strict proof of all allegations in the Complaint which are not expressly admitted herein. The Defendants further deny all allegations not otherwise addressed herein. The Defendants further deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested in the Prayer for Relief, or any relief.
For all the foregoing defenses and reasons, the Defendants move this Court to enter judgment in their behalf and to award them all other such relief as may be appropriate.
C. JAMES SLYE,
JOHN H. KIDD,
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
By Counsel
DOUGLAS L. GUYNN (VSB #19748)
MARK D. OBENSHAIN (VSB #27476)
Of Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver PLC
100 South Mason Street
P. 0. Box 20028
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-7528
(540) 438-5343
Counsel for Defendants
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed this 19th day of January, 2000, to Rebecca K. Glenberg, American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Foundation, Inc., 6 North 6th Street, Suite 400, Richmond, Virginia 23219 and Michael A. Bamberger, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, 10020-1089.
______________________________
Counsel for Defendants