Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/arb/award/2005/119.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:52:31+00:00

Document:
On November 20, 2003, during a high school math class he was teaching, Dr. Bertram Miller, compared the fame of Pythagoras to Jesus, Mohammed and Moses. He was given a written reprimand by his Principal, Ms. Diane L. Garbarino for making a religious reference unrelated to math instruction after an earlier warning about such classroom comments and filed a grievance protesting the reprimand. His grievance was denied and this arbitration followed.
The Undersigned was appointed as Arbitrator by agreement of the parties. An arbitration hearing was conducted at the TABCO office in Towson, Maryland on September 13, 2005. During the course of the hearing all witnesses testified under oath, the parties were afforded full opportunity for the presentation of evidence, examination and cross-examination of witnesses and oral argument. A stenographic record of the arbitration hearing was made and a transcript of the proceedings was provided to the Arbitrator.
The parties elected to file post-hearing briefs. The Arbitrator received timely briefs from both parties. They have been carefully considered.
The letter of reprimand recited (1) that Ms. Garbarino had previously investigated parent/student complaints that Dr. Miller was spending too much time talking about religion, ethnic groups and other people/subjects that had nothing to do with the teaching of math; (2) that she had met with him and his Department Head, Ms. Goodson, on November 18, 2003, (later corrected to be November 17, 2003) and directed him to stop making religious comments or references in his classroom; and (3) that on November 20, 2003, in another conference with her and Ms. Goodson, Dr. Miller had shared with them that he had made reference to three religious leaders in a class discussion that day.
The parties agreed that the issue raised by the grievance is whether the reprimand of December 22, 2003, violated Dr. Miller's rights under Section 6.3 of the CBA; that is, whether he was reprimanded without just cause, and if so what should the remedy be to rectify the violation.
The Board contends that Dr. Miller was given the directive of November17, 2003 by Ms. Garbarino as a result of the severity of student complaints about his >unconstitutional and erratic' behavior. The Board defends the reprimand on two grounds - (1) following the November 17, 2003 directive, Dr. Miller made statements in his classroom that were unrelated to math instruction, and (2) were discriminatory, unconstitutional and precluded effective instruction.
More specifically, the Board contends that the evidence demonstrates just cause for the reprimand because of Dr. Miller's clear violation of Ms. Garbarino's directive to refrain from making religious references in class following his blatant disregard of constitutional and curricular requirements. In addition, the Board contends that the reprimand was justified because the Board has a constitutional obligation to ensure that religious neutrality is maintained.
In support of its argument, the Board cited the Maryland State Board of Education's decision in Norman L. Nichols v. Caroline County Board of Education , MSBE Op. Mo.03-26 (2003); Wiley v. Franklin, 486 F. Supp 133. (E.D. Tenn. 1979); HRW Geometry, Lesson 5.4, The Pythagorean Right Triangle Theorem, pages 267-269; and BCPS Geometry Curriculum Guide (June 1999), Pages 122-123.
Set forth in this Section is a summary of the evidence sufficient to understand the parties' positions. Other facts and evidence may be noted in the Discussion below to the extent knowledge of either is necessary to understand the Arbitrator's decision.
Dr. Miller reported to Ms. Garbarino's office as she had requested. Ms. Goodson, the math department chairperson, was also present. Ms. Garbarino confronted him with the parent complaint about the lengthy conversation on driveways. He told Ms. Garbarino that he could not recall such a conversation. Ms. Garbarino had no further information about that and moved the discussion to the parent complaint about Dr. Miller remaining mute on parent visitation day. (Tr. 15-16) He explained that he was participating in the SADD activities for the week and that this was Ghost Out Day when typically students would paint their faces white every so many seconds to indicate a teenage death related to alcohol. Ms. Garbarino asked him if the embroidery on the clothing he was wearing was in Hebrew and he told her it was. She told him to remove the clothing and leave it in her office to avoid any accusation that it had any connection with religion, and he did.
Dr. Miller also volunteered to Ms. Garbarino that he had held another classroom reference that a parent might find upsetting which was started when he remarked during a discussion about 9/11 that the hijackers of the 9/11 airplanes were Muslims. A Muslim student in the class confronted him about both the forced conversion and 9/11 comments.
Where, as in the present case, an employer's right to discipline an employee, in this case a reprimand, is limited by the contractual requirement of just cause, the employer has the burden of producing evidence to persuade the Arbitrator that just cause existed for the discipline.
The analysis to determine just cause starts with whether the employer produced clear and convincing evidence that the employee, in fact, engaged in the conduct that the employer cited as the basis for the discipline. If such evidence is produced, the employer must complete its burden by showing (1) that the employee was given adequate forewarning that the objectionable behavior would result in discipline; (2) that the discipline was reasonably related to orderly, efficient and safe operations; (3) that the discipline was administered following a fair and objective investigation of the facts; (4) that the discipline was reasonably related to the seriousness of the employee's misconduct with due regard for the employee's past work record; and (5) that the discipline was applied in a consistent and nondiscriminatory manner, that is, that similarly situated employees were treated similarly and disparate treatment avoided.
2. Was Ms. Garbarino's Directive a Valid Exercise of Ms. Garbarino's Authority?
Doubtless, a school administration has a clear, compelling and defensible interest in adopting and enforcing rules requiring teachers to keep classroom discussions on topic and discouraging or even warning against making unrelated commentary or engaging in classroom discussions that might be controversial or disruptive, particularly if the commentary or discussions might lead to religious divisiveness or promote social conflict or even subject the school district to claims of First Amendment violations.
3. Did Dr. Miller Violate Ms. Garbarino's Directive?
The issue here, however, is not whether the directive was a valid exercise of the Principal's authority but whether Dr. Miller violated its terms by his Pythagoras comment.
BCPS argues that Ms. Garbarino's warning was direct and that Dr. Miller violated it by engaging in unconstitutional conduct that directly impacted his ability to deliver effective instruction. In support of this argument, the Board's written brief cited to statements by students that Dr. Miller wasted valuable class time to express his personal religious beliefs, that he insulted other religions, that his tone was arrogant and militant and sarcastic, that he made a student mad by his comments. As a result, he was directed to refrain from making religious references in class and to focus on math instruction. The Board's written closing brief states that Ms. Garbarino issued her directive based upon the severity of the students' complaints. However, the only evidence that would support the severity of the students' complaints were the three student statements in Board Exhibit 2, all of which were secured following her conference with Dr. Miller the morning of November 17, 2003 - two of which were dated after November 17, 2003.
Nevertheless, however appropriate Ms. Garbarino's November 17 directive may have been, does not address the question whether Dr. Miller's comparison of Pythagoras' prominence in history to the historical prominence of Jesus, Moses and Mohammed was a religious comment or reference or that he failed to keep the focus of instruction on math. Consequently, to sustain the validity of the reprimand, BCPS must persuade the Arbitrator that Dr. Miller's statement, made to a geometry class that was studying the Pythagorean Theorem, that compared Pythagoras' fame to other historical figures, all names associated with religions, was a religious comment or reference that he should have reasonably understood violated his principal's directive to refrain from making religious commentary or moved the focus of instruction from the course of study contrary to the directive.
Although Dr. Miller testified that it was clear to him from Ms. Garbarino that he was not supposed to have religious conversations and discussions in class (Tr. 80), he argues that her directive was unclear as to its precise breadth and scope, and, thus, did not put him on notice as to the conduct that was prohibited. To support this argument, he explained that he told Ms. Garbarino about his Pythagoras comment in order to get clarification whether that type of comment was permissible under her directive.
BCPS's written Closing Argument refers to its constitutional obligation to ensure that religious neutrality is maintained, and urges that the Grievant by his actions, violated the Board's obligation, asserting that the Garbarino reprimand was justified on constitutional grounds. As noted above, not until the Board's written closing argument did it defend the reprimand on constitutional grounds - not in the directive of November 17th, not in the conference with Dr. Miller on November 20th, not in the reprimand, not in the Level I or II grievance decisions and not in the hearing.
Nonetheless, the issue of the permissible limits of religion and religious references in public schools under the constitution requires examination. Indeed, the issue has undergone and continues to receive intense focus in the courts and public discourse and continues to be the subject of debate beginning most notably with the school prayer case of Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963). However, in striking down prayer in the schools, the majority opinion of Justice Clark recognized that not all references or discussions of religion in the public classroom are improper, noting that Ait might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Thus, the Court recognized that teaching religion in the context of history and other secular subjects was not only constitutional but desirable.
Another useful guide might be from the decision in Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). There the Court held that released time from public school classes for religious instruction did not violate the establishment clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Douglas stated that there was no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.
Most recently, the Court noted again how historical context may save what may otherwise have a religious message. In Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. ___ (2005), although not decided in a public school setting, the Court held that while the Ten Commandments are religious, a monument inscribed with the Commandments which was one of a number of historical markers and other monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol, has an undeniable historical meaning; and that simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. As Justice Breyer stated in his concurring opinion, despite the Commandments' religious message, an inquiry into the context in which the text of the Commandments is used demonstrates that the Commandments also convey a secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law. The circumstances surrounding the monument's placement on the capitol grounds and its physical setting provide a strong, but not conclusive, indication that the Commandments' text as used on this monument conveys a predominantly secular message; and that while the underlying purposes of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses--to assure the fullest possible scope of religious liberty and tolerance for all . . . and to maintain the separation of church and state . . . no exact formula can dictate a resolution.
Thus, contrary to the Board's concern that Dr. Miller subjected it to the risk of a constitutional violation, applying the principle enunciated in the Abington Township School District v. Schempp and Zorach v. Clausen dicta and the lesson of Van Orden mitigates if not wipes out any such risk. Indeed, as Dr. Miller explained, in the study of history, students will come across the names of these three historical figures. Thus, his comparison of these historical figures to his class, similar to the school prayer case dicta, was justified as worthy of study for literary and historic qualities for the purpose of impressing on students the stature of the historical figure who contributed to the development of the field of mathematics that they were studying.
Finally, there is the question whether any basis exists to conclude that Dr. Miller knew or reasonably should have been expected to know ahead of time that the mere mention of the names of religious figures regardless of context would likely result in disciplinary action. As he explained on cross examination, it was clear to him that he was not to have religious conversations and discussions in class. However, he had been made the comment ranking Pythagoras, a historical figure who had played a major role in developing modern mathematical concepts, with three of history's most well known names in religion for the past 15 or 20 years in his classroom. There had never been a complaint from either students or parents about the comparison. (Tr. 68).
Having heard the testimony and carefully reviewed the evidence and written closings in support of the parties' positions on the grievance, and in light of the above Discussion, the Arbitrator finds that BCPS did not sustain its burden of producing evidence to show just cause for the reprimand. Dr. Miller's reference to and recitation of the names Jesus, Mohamed and Moses did not violate Ms. Garbarino's directive.
While Dr. Miller had adequate forewarning that he was not to make religious commentary or make religious/ethnic reference, Ms. Garbarino's directive did not elaborate nor explain the scope of her ban. Indeed, common usage or understanding of these terms would include such behavior as promoting or undermining religious beliefs, doctrine or philosophy, promoting or undermining tolerance or religious freedom or describing religious faiths in their ecumenical perspective or, as in the Caroline County case cited by the Board, infusing . . . personal religious beliefs into . . . lessons . . . , and advancing his own religious beliefs without tendering any rational connection with curriculum. The Board argues in its brief that In the same way, Dr. Miller discussed religious subjects during math class, citing his numerous conversations and the infusion of his personal beliefs as documented by the student statements in Board Exhibit 2. The Board's brief quotes one student who in reference to one of Dr. Miller's classroom discussions stated that giving such a passionate lecture is completely wrong, and argues that In this light it had just cause to issue the letter of reprimand. (Board brief at p.5-7) But, the testimony of all of the Board's witnesses by their own admissions clearly acknowledged that any alleged numerous conversations, etc. or passionate lectures were not the basis for the reprimand. The Pythagoras comment was the sole basis for the reprimand.
Finally, Dr. Miller's reference was not part of a classroom discussion that was unrelated to math. While staying on topic is essential to good instruction and Ms. Garbarino's directive to that effect was entirely reasonable, Dr. Miller's ranking of Pythagoras, one of the universally recognized major figures in the development of mathematics, alongside other historical figures to reinforce the important contribution that Pythagoras made to human knowledge, was related to the subject matter and consistent with a teacher's responsibility to his students to stay on topic.
Accordingly, having found that Dr. Miller did not violate Ms. Garbarino's directive of November 20, 2003, the Grievance is granted. The Board is directed to remove the December 20, 2003, reprimand from all files in which the letter of reprimand was placed including Dr. Miller's personnel file and to notify him and TABCO within 10 days that it has complied with this Award.
 Dr. Miller testified that he had been using this strategy for the past 15 years and considered it a very successful educational technique. (Tr. 62) There was no evidence that there had ever been a complaint nor had the school administration ever directed him not to commemorate the day in this manner.
The Board's Post-Hearing written closing stated that the reprimand was issued AAs a result of (Dr. Miller's) insubordination.
There was no testimony or evidence that any parent or student complained about Dr. Miller's Pythagoras comment.
Neither Ms. Garbarino's directive nor the written reprimand makes any reference to the Board's constitutional obligations; nor do the Level I or II decisions.
In a footnote to its brief, the Board posits that Moses was a mythical not an historical figure and cites scholarly authority that even questions the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. To engage in debate over this assertion would be well beyond the scope of this matter and would not contribute to answering the issue posed by the grievance. Likewise, the attachments to the Board's brief shed no light on answering the issue raised by the grievance.
See also Wiley v. Franklin, the other case cited by the Board. There, a teacher was terminated for assigning the Bible as part of the curriculum. He claimed that religious music was part of the music curriculum but the court found that his assignment had nothing to do with religious music and everything to do with advancing his own religious beliefs in the classroom. Unlike Dr. Miller, he failed to show any rational connection with the music curriculum and his termination was upheld.
While Ms. Garbarino testified that the reprimand was based in part on the parental complaint she received on December 3, she was unable to confirm whether the conduct complained of by the parent occurred before or after the November 17th verbal directive and Mr. Capozzi confirmed that his decision at Level II upholding the reprimand did not consider the December 3rd parent complaint because of uncertainty over when the conduct occurred.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.