Opinion ID: 2977242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Grosjeans

Text: -4- Nos. 07-2052/07-2102 Grosjean v. Bommarito The Grosjeans are advocates in the Program. Prior to this lawsuit, the Grosjeans included biblical passages in their API profiles (Andrew since 2001, Glenda since 2004). Andrew’s API profile read in part: I know the rules and will give you 100%. Call me for undivided attention. Last minute cases welcome. “Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do justice, for my salvation is near to come.” Isa. 56.5. Glenda’s API profile read in part: Courteous and qualified, I will not treat you like a number. An EXPERT in unemployment law, I will aggressively conquer your case. “And what doth the LORD require of thee but to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with thy GOD.” Micah 6:8b. During this time, it is undisputed that the Grosjeans were hired by customers on account of these biblical passages. Given the lack of editorial oversight, UIA officials were unaware that the Grosjeans included biblical references in their API narratives. Another advocate in the program pointed out the references to Twyman in Fall 2005. Twyman decided to strike the biblical references because, as she testified, they were not relevant biographical information pertaining to the Program. Maureen Michalski, an advocacy manager in the UIA, informed the Grosjeans of the UIA’s decision in October 2005. Shortly after informing the Grosjeans of the decision, the agency began to review and to edit the narratives of other advocates. The UIA removed a number of statements from existing APIs. At the same time, the agency began developing the New API Template. -5- Nos. 07-2052/07-2102 Grosjean v. Bommarito In November 2006, the Grosjeans submitted revised APIs under the new template that contained biblical references but without any verse text. Andrew’s proposed API included the language: “Experienced in MESC appeals and church employment issues from [a] Biblical perspective (see Isa. 51:1).” Glenda’s proposed API included the language: “Two years experience counseling claimants on standing up for their rights from a Biblical perspective (see Micah 6:8).” The UIA censored the phrases “from a Biblical perspective (see Isa. 51:1)” and “counseling claimants on standing up for their rights from a Biblical perspective (see Micah 6:8)” from the APIs. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Grosjeans sued Twyman, Michalski, and Sharon Bommarito, then-Director of the UIA, in their official and individual capacities in the Eastern District of Michigan. The Grosjeans alleged that the Defendants violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise, their right to equal protection, and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They sought declaratory relief, preliminary and injunctive relief, nominal damages and costs and fees. C. The District Court Granted Summary Judgment to the Defendants The parties submitted cross motions for summary judgment. The district court first concluded that the APIs used in the Program were a form of private speech, not government speech. The district court found no Establishment Clause concerns involving the APIs. Grosjean v. Bommarito, No. 05-74338, 2007 WL 2225878, at  (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2007). The district court next considered the type of forum created by the API list. It concluded that the list amounted to a nonpublic forum and, as such, the UIA could engage in content-based -6- Nos. 07-2052/07-2102 Grosjean v. Bommarito discrimination of the advocates’ speech as long as the restrictions were reasonable considering the purposes and objectives of the Program. Id. at . The district court rejected the Grosjeans’ argument that the Defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination, which is presumptively invalid even with regard to a nonpublic forum. Id. at . The district court also rejected the Grosjeans’ equal protection and vagueness/overbreadth claims as well as the Defendants’ mootness argument. Id. at -8. Finding no genuine issue of material fact on the Grosjeans’ constitutional claims, the district court granted judgment to the Defendants. Id. at . The Grosjeans appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants and its denial of summary judgment to them. For their part, the Defendants cross-appealed the district court’s rejection of their mootness defense.