Lori Adamczyk
CAPS 408 - Legal Aspects of Education
April 11, 2002

Introduction

Tommy Schroeder was employed as a teacher by the Hamilton School District in Wisconsin. He filed a suit against the school district, the school district administrator, and several of the staff administrators under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, in which he alleged that the district violated his right to equal protection of the law. He claimed that the district didn't take reasonable action to protect him from harassment because of his homosexuality. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the district and the administrators. Schroeder appealed to the circuit court of appeals. The circuit court found that there was no evidence that the school district failed to protect Schroeder in an acceptable manner. There was one concurring opinion and one dissenting opinion.

Background

The district had employed Schroeder for about fifteen years when he was moved to a new school to teach sixth grade in 1990. Shortly after he began teaching there, he told staff members he was homosexual and eventually made a public announcement. He was harassed by certain individuals about this, and most of the harassment came from the students. Some of the harassment was mild, but some was quite harsh. He reported the incidents to the principal, and some of the students were disciplined. The harassment continued. The principal circulated a memo, stating in general terms that inappropriate language or terms would not be tolerated. Schroeder considered this memo too mild a response. When he spoke with the principal, she said; "you can't stop middle school kids from saying things. Guess you'll just have to ignore it."

In 1996, Schroeder was moved to a new school to teach first and second grade classes. The harassment began again, but this time most of the taunting came from parents. In February 1998, Schroeder had a mental breakdown. On February 11, 1998, Schroeder submitted a letter of resignation to his current principal. This was his last day of teaching, and the district officially terminated his employment at the end of the school year in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the district and the teachers union. Schroeder asserted that the continued harassment as well as the lack of proper response by individuals to address the problem caused his breakdown and eventually the termination of his employment.

Decision

Schroeder argued that the district's treatment of him, due to his homosexuality, was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He said that the district treated him differently from other groups when addressing his harassment complaints. In order for the court to establish a violation of the equal protection clause, it must be shown that the defendants:

(1) treated him differently from others who were similarly situated
(2) intentionally treated him differently because of his membership in the class to which he belonged (i.e.,homosexuals)
(3) that the discriminatory intent was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest (because homosexuals do not enjoy any heightened protection under the Constitution)

Also, in order for there to be an equal protection violation, the plaintiff must show that there was "intentional or purposeful discrimination." This implies that the plaintiff must show that the defendants singled out a group to discriminate against and, at least in part, did so to cause adverse affects on the particular group. The court refused to apply Title VII analysis to this Section 1983 case as sought by Schroeder.

The court then addressed each of the three requirements for a violation of equal protection. Schroeder said that he was treated differently than other groups (such as race or gender) would have been treated. However, the court found that "there is scant evidence that the incidents involving Schroeder were treated differently from those involving other teachers." The court found that the memo circulated by the principal in response to incidents of discrimination was not insufficient. This memo, however general, was simply trying to use the resources of the school in a more efficient manner; not specifically mentioning sexual orientation was not a problem. Also, the court said that the primary concern of a school must be the well-being of the students. Young students are more vulnerable to mockery than experienced teachers, and so the school must protect the students first. School officials must also be cautious in the harshness of the punishment given to nonviolent harassers of teachers, even if the harassment is offensive. The court cited several specific examples of when Schroeder was treated much like any other teacher in similar situations.

Schroeder claimed that the lack of a specific policy for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was a form of discrimination in itself. There were specific policies for race and sex discrimination in the district. The court found that simply not having a specific policy is not discrimination. The court cited the fact that homosexuals do not have any heightened protection under the Constitution and thus discrimination against homosexuals "will only constitute a violation of equal protection when it lacks rational basis." There was no evidence that the lack of such policy by the district was hostile towards homosexuals.

The court found several problems with Schroeder's suggestion that the district hold training sessions dealing with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. First, the school's resources are too limited for such a program that seemingly affected so few individuals (in this case, one individual). Second, a policy dealing specifically with sexual orientation may be problematic for younger children. Explanations imperative to a discussion of homosexuality may be inappropriate for this age group. The court noted, of course, that the school may discipline students for mocking anyone, regardless of the reason, and that the district did this.

On the basis of this evidence, the court found that the district did not violate the equal protection clause. Schroeder failed to demonstrate the facts needed to charge the district with such an offense. The evidence showed that the district did show concern for the situation and took the appropriate actions.

One judge wrote to concur with the majority decision, but also to add several items that were not included in the decision. This judge emphasized that the decision would have been the same even if Schroeder had shown that the district administrators responded less strongly to the harassment he received than they responded to other forms of prejudice.

As stated earlier, homosexuals are not given the same constitutional status as blacks or women. The equal protection cause is only violated for homosexuals if the discrimination lacks a rational basis. There was no evidence that the school district was hostile to Schroeder because he was homosexual. It is rational for a school district to prioritize protective activities, and so if discrimination against homosexuals was less of a problem than other forms of discrimination, then it would be rational for the school district to use more resources to stop the other forms of discrimination. Also, the district was rational in its hesitation to teach sexual issues such as homosexuality to young children. Finally, favoritism of one group does not necessarily mean discrimination against another, and so even if others were protected more, Schroeder was not necessarily harmed.

This judge found that, in concurrence with the majority opinion, the district didn't violate the equal protection clause. However, he added that there was no evidence to show that the district discriminated against Schroeder or that the district was irrational in the actions it took.

Another judge offered a dissenting opinion on the basis that the decision was inconsistent with a prior ruling, Romer v. Evans. Romer stated that the equal protection clause does protect homosexuals from harassment.

It is evident that Schroeder's breakdown was a direct result of the harassment he had been receiving at school. This harassment, though acknowledged by the district, was not handled adequately. Students were not informed of the specific words that would be offensive to homosexuals; the information given to the students was too general. Finally, the treatment of homosexuals by the school district was different from the treatment of other classes of people such as females and blacks. Sexual orientation is not gender related, and so the district had no specific policy about it, as they did for other groups. The point of the majority opinion, that a lack of resources may have prevented more actions from being taking, is also not an acceptable reason. A short phrase could have been added to the memo and would have taken very few resources.

It is the opinion of this judge that due to the harassment and lack of appropriate response of the district, Schroeder was justified in his claims against the district. She would recommend that the decision of the majority be reversed and that the case proceed to trial.