This case demonstrates the issue of infringement of one’s First Amendment rights specifically, the Free Speech Clause. Therefore raising the question: Is Bright Horizons Children’s Center infringing on Nelli Parisenkova’s First Amendment right of Free Speech by denying her a religious exemption for the diversity lesson plans? And if yes, is this an example of viewpoint discrimination?
By not granting Ms.Parisenkova an exemption from reading aloud the children’s books that are explicitly accepting of same sex marriage, the preschool would be placing a substantial burden on her by forcing her to teach diverse views that counter her religious beliefs. The belief that men and women are supposed to get married and not same sex couples, is a central belief to the Christian religion. Although these arguments are valid, counter arguments can also be raised. Such that, Bright Horizons Children Center feels it has a compelling interest to ensure that all of their preschoolers receive a well rounded, inclusive learning environment which includes learning about the LGBTQ+ community. If this is one of the main goals of the preschool: to ensure a well rounded education, including learning about diversity, and Ms. Parisenkova’s beliefs stop her from being able to give this type of education to the children, due to the fact that the school is private and not public, the school can fire her.
This article reminds me of the Good News Club v. Milford Central School in that both of these cases bring up the issue of viewpoint versus subject discrimination. In the Good News Club, the main issue was that a Christian club was initially denied the use of public school property after hours because Milford Central School was worried about infringement of the Establishment clause. However the courts found that there would be no infringement of the Establishment clause since it is obvious the club isn’t being endorsed by the public school. Furthermore the courts found that it was clear the school district was being discriminatory towards the club’s religious viewpoint when the club was denied access to the limited public forum.
In the Bright Horizons Children’s Center case, it is clear the preschool is being discriminatory towards Ms. Parisenkova’s religious viewpoint since when the higher administration found out about her religious beliefs and how they counteracted with diversity, the school immediately took action against her. Therefore it is clear Bright Horizons is favoring a viewpoint that is anti-religious (unless the religion is supportive of same sex marriages).
A key difference between these two cases, as I stated previously, is that Bright Horizons Children’s Center is a private preschool whereas Milford Central is a public middle school. Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional in public settings where the government endorses the institution. In Bright Horizons Children’s Center, although it may be clear that the school is being discriminatory towards Ms. Parisenkova’s religious viewpoint surrounding diversity, Ms. Parisenkova was aware that the preschool environment encouraged and fostered a sense of diversity.
In my opinion, I side with Bright Horizons Children’s Center. I don’t think it was right of Ms. Parisenkova’s boss to allow her an unofficial exemption if a core part of the preschool is to foster a sense of diversity, this exemption would obviously give Ms. Parisenkova a false sense of hope in keeping her job without furthering one of the main missions of the school. However since it was an unofficial exemption and the higher administration was, as it seems, unaware of the exemption I would say her being able to get away with not teaching the diversity literature for four years isn’t a strong argument. If the higher administration had known she wasn’t teaching the diversity books, they would’ve called her out sooner. Additionally private institutions, like Bright Horizons, are allowed to make rules that help foster certain environments. If the staff at private schools cannot help foster the environment the school is aiming for, the school is allowed to fire the staff. Ms. Parisenkova knew about the schools goal to foster a sense of acceptance towards same sex marriage, and if her religion stopped her from helping to foster that environment she should’ve quit. In my opinion, the burden placed on Ms. Parisenkova of choosing between employment or her religious beliefs is less than the burden that would be placed on the institution if the institution was forced to keep staff members that didn’t align with their goal of furthering an inclusive education environment.
What’s the point of having policies within an institution if staff members don’t support and further those policies? Wouldn’t Ms. Parisenkova want to work in an environment that aligns more with her personal beliefs? Would you want to work in an environment that openly supports communities / ideas that contradict with your personal beliefs? Do you believe Bright Horizons has the right to fire Ms. Parisenkova if her religious beliefs stop her from furthering the type of environment the school is trying to provide for its children?
Great work! This is a very interesting case and reminds me of Chloe's blog post a few weeks ago involving nurse practitioner Paige Casey and CVS Minute Clinic. (Casey was fired from her job for refusing to sell contraceptive medication.) Both cases involve a worker who lost her job due to refusal to do part of the job for religious reasons. I agree with you in this case. Because Bright Horizons is a private school, they are justified in removing a teacher that is unwilling to teach the curriculum they have set. According to the school, teaching this content is a part of Parisenkova's job description as a preschool teacher and she was removed from that role after failing to meet the criteria. I do not believe that this is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Julia! I would have to side with Ms. Parisenkova in this case because I feel Bright Horizons Children’s Center is actually contradicting its own desire for a diverse, inclusive environment by discriminating against her particular religious views, which violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Allowing her an exemption to not read books about same-sex marriage would not have an adverse effect on the preschoolers or the school itself, but firing her because of her religious beliefs places a substantial burden on Ms. Parisenkova. However, in terms of this being a private school setting, you brought up an interesting point with your question, “Wouldn’t Ms. Parisenkova want to work in an environment that aligns more with her religious beliefs?” I think the strongest counterargument to the argument I stated above is that Ms. Parisenkova is not guaranteed employment at Bright Horizon’s Children’s Center, and she can find employment elsewhere, maybe at a Christian preschool that aligns with her sincere religious views on same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you in this case and side with Bright Horizons Children's Center. I feel as if this is a neutral policy and it is not targeting religion or non religion in anyway. The institution is a private one so they can make whatever rules they would like to make. Ms.Parisenkova has no constitutional right to work at this preschool so if her values do not align with the school she can work elsewhere. I do not think the school made this policy in order to discriminate against Ms.Parisenkova's views, rather they made it to promote diversity in the school system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance in siding with Bright Horizons Children’s Center. Since the school is a private institutions, certain policies can be instilled that may not align with a person’s belief. That does not mean that the school is infringing on a person’s belief because that person can go elsewhere that share similar beliefs. If the inclusive environment and the teachings of same sex marriage does not align with a person’s ideals, it is not the insitutions problem to alter its course/teachings. This case seems like a paradox. The schools wants to have diversity and inclusion, yet fires a woman for having religious views towards a particular subject. The teacher felt like there was a burden on exercising her religion, yet she is not in a public institution that would allow for a non-discrimination policy based on religion. Therefore, Bright Horizons Children’s Center is not infringing on her rights when they can choose the way the course materials should be taught. An additional thought would be if a Christian school was forced to hire an atheist. The Christian school would deny that appliant because the atheist would contradict the school’s views on most topics that would be taught in a public school. I believe similar logic applies to the reverse of this statement.
ReplyDeleteReally great work and nice job relating this case to one discussed in class! This case reminds me a lot of a case that a student wrote earlier in the year Wyoming Rescue Mission v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (regarding a religious institutions’ ability to employ like-minded individuals). I agree with your post that due to the private nature of the institution it is within their power to dismiss Parisenkova from her job if she is not willing to promote tenets that are foundational to the job responsibility of these employees and can discriminate against her viewpoint. However, if this were a public institution, I think it would be important to assess whether or not there was a reasonable accommodation made for her (which I don’t believe there was as it was unofficial and not followed through) and if not whether providing the original unofficial accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship on the institution prior to her getting fired.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post. I think you make very valuable comments throughout the post in regard to the case. You also did a gob job connecting this case to Good News Club v. Milford Central School. I agree with your point that this case is a little different than Good News Club v. Milford Central School because the Bright Horizon school is private. In these instances the private vs public sphere distinctions are extremely important. Nelli does have a burden in the sense that she is being limited on her religious beliefs. However the compelling state interest to have diverse teachings overrides Nellis personal religious beliefs. She has an obligation to the school to upkeep the required teachings regarding diversity. Nelli is allowed to continue to believe what she does about same sex marriage, however if she wants to teach in an environment where that is not discussed she can not teach at Bright Horizons Children’s Center, and she needs to teach somewhere else. This rule is neutral to all employees at the school. Because of this I do hold that the school has a right to fire Nelli.
ReplyDeleteI would have to side with the school in this case, first of all the school seeks to create an inclusive environment where everyone is welcomed, yet Ms. Parisenkova is not being very welcoming. Saying that she is being discriminated against for thinking that way is the same rhetoric used to justify white supremacy and racism in modern society. making sure that faculty is open to everyone is key for many institutions and is Ms. Parisenkova does not like it there, there are places where these beliefs can be upheld.
ReplyDeleteIt is just as you say--because the preschool is private, they technically are allowed to force their teachers to comply with whatever views they wish, whether or not the teachers agree. I do not think the teacher is being discriminated against for harboring discriminatory views. What she believes in simply does not align with her former employer, and for that she was fired. She has no right to work in the school, but the school has the right to hire and fire her as they wish for not aligning with their views.
ReplyDelete