ILNews

COA addresses first impression issue regarding education under civil rights law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals – with one judge reluctantly doing so – affirmed a decision by an administrative law judge that found a religious organization unlawfully retaliated against a family by expelling them from the homeschooling group. The expulsion occurred after the family sought a dietary accommodation for their teenage daughter at a social event and later filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission.

Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society Inc. is a private, nonprofit religious organization founded by Catholic parents to provide religious, educational and social enrichment opportunities for their homeschooled children. Elizabeth Bridgewater and her daughter Alyssa belonged to the organization where Alyssa took several educational courses that did not relate to religion.

Alyssa requires dietary accommodations because of a life-threatening allergic reaction to certain foods. Her mother, who was planning a masquerade ball in 2008 for the teenage members of the group, sought a special meal for Alyssa. FACES co-founder Vanessa Alexander denied the request and said Alyssa could bring in a meal. Her ticket would not be discounted, and Bridgewater was later removed from planning duties by Alexander.

The Bridgewaters filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission alleging discrimination. FACES then expelled the family citing four reasons, including that Bridgewater contacted the event venue after she was told not to. The family then alleged that FACES unlawfully retaliated against them because they filed the accommodation complaint.

An administrative law judge found it could rule on the matter despite the group’s religious affiliation because it was “related to education” under I.C. 22-9-1-3(1). The ALJ also held FACES didn’t commit an unlawful discriminatory practice, but did unlawfully retaliate against the family. The ALJ ordered $2,500 in damages to Alyssa, that FACES re-admit the family, and that it post this decision on all websites on which FACES communicated information about the case.

“What ‘relates to’ education under Indiana’s civil rights law is the threshold, first-impression issue disputed by the parties, and the first question facing this Court,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote in the majority opinion in Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. v. Elizabeth Bridgewater o/b/o Alyssa Bridgewater, 93A02-1202-EX-145.  "… [W]e believe that a group – even a religious one – may take certain steps to place itself within the purview of the ICRC in this state. In determining whether this has occurred, we believe it is necessary to consider the group’s nature and educational features; particularly the level of the group’s formality and the delivery and substance of the education it provides.”

Vaidik pointed to FACES steps to formalize itself – it has a board of directors, offers non-religious courses, and the structure of the classes.

“The ICRC inquired into FACES’ accommodation of Alyssa’s dietary needs and retaliatory expulsion of the Bridgewater family. There is simply no religious entanglement issue here – there is no evidence that either of these inquiries resulted in governmental interference with the tenets of the Catholic faith.”

The COA affirmed the damages award to Alyssa but reversed the order that FACES must post the ALJ’s decision on all websites where it discusses the case.

Judge L. Mark Bailey concurred in result reluctantly, he wrote, because he doesn’t think matters “relating to …education” as provided by the Indiana Civil Rights Law should encompass a social function like the ball.

“I do not think, based upon the language of the ICRL, that the ICRC would have properly had subject matter jurisdiction over the Bridgewaters’ complaint were it not for FACES’s retaliatory conduct,” he wrote.

Bailey would hold that the order that Alyssa be readmitted only extends to those activities of FACES that are specifically educational rather than social.

“I do not think that the legislature’s broad intent when it enacted our civil rights statutes involved making the ICRC and our courts arbiters of such private disputes as have arisen between FACES and the Bridgewaters,” he added.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT