Ruling Immunizes Dr. Corbett and Brings the Matter to a Close.
Plaintiff/student C.F., by and through his parents Bill and Teresa Farnan, filed a suit for violation of C.F.’s First Amendment rights by the Capistrano United School District and Dr. James C. Corbett arising out of Dr. Corbett’s alleged hostile religious remarks in an Advanced Placement European History class. This case has been in the news frequently in Orange County in various forms of media.
There had been a fear that Dr. Corbett might face substantial fee exposure to plaintiff’s attorneys after U.S. District Judge James V. Selna ruled that there was merit to Plaintiff’s claim based on one statement made by Dr. Corbett. However, that fear did not materialize after a September 15, 2009 ruling on District Judge Selna.
He ruled that Dr. Corbett had qualified immunity. Here is how he eloquently put it in his order although clearly reminding everyone that a First Amendment violation had been previously found:
“. . . today’s application of the doctrine of qualified immunity recognizes that public officials operate in an environment not shared by their colleagues in the private sector. Public officials have no choice about interacting with the public; that is their job. Unlike interactions in the private sector, every interaction brings into play potential Constitutional rights and the possibility of infringement of those rights. Perhaps this is most clearly seen in the context of law enforcement where advisements of Constitutional rights, search and seizure issues, and the use of lawful force are a part of a police officer’s daily responsibilities. But the same is true of a teacher presenting a challenging subject such as Advanced Placement European History which cannot be fairly treated without discussing religion, just as Corbett was doing during the fall of 2007. Public officials must be able to do their jobs without fear that every misstep, however slight, will subject them to liability and the paralysis which goes with such a fear. Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity looks to whether there was a clearly established right in issue. Here, the Court has found that there was not, and thus Corbett is shielded from liability—not because he did not violate the Constitution, but because of the balance which must be struck to allow public officials to perform their duties. The law as it existed in the fall of 2007 did not make clear that a single statement in an area of the law which lacks precision could violate the Constitution. The decision here on the merits advances the clarity of Farnan’s right to be free of anti-religious comments, but the extent of the advance and the results of future applications of the doctrine of qualified immunity in this area are for another day and another court.”