Update [2009-2-10 18:27:23 by Steven D]: Mr. Mullens, the teacher in question, has resigned. It isn’t clear from this news story whether he will be pursuing any legal remedies against the school district. The Superintendent, Lana Comeaux, mentioned in his statement cited below, also resigned under mysterious circumstances last November shortly after the conversation described by Mr. Mullens occurred. Apparently, many of the school board members and the people who complained about Mr. Mullens and Ms. Comeaux all belong to the same Baptist church whose pastor has been hired to replace Mr. Mullens and teach his classes.

* * * * *

I’m always fascinated by the people in “Real America” who know so little about this country’s founding principles that they believe they have the right to discriminate against anyone who isn’t a Protestant Christian heterosexual. In particular they seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to persecute teachers who don’t share their religious or political views.

If the following statement is true and accurate in its particulars, Richard Mullens, a school teacher in Brookeland, Texas, has a valid claim against the local school board in Brookeland for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (codified at 42 USC Section 2000e et seq.). His crime? He was a teacher who made it known he supported Obama and was willing to tell his students that the propaganda they heard from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and their pastors and parents (i.e, that Obama was a Muslim, a terrorist, etc.) was pure malarkey. Here’s his statement:

I, Richard Mullens, have been a teacher in the state of Texas since 1971. I have never received a negative comment, complaint, or write-up during this period of time. On the contrary, I have received recognition for my teaching and the test scores of my students. No matter what district I’ve taught in, my students have always excelled in the state mandated tests. I currently teach in Brookeland, TX, a small rural district about 16 miles north of Jasper, TX. I’ve taught at Brookeland for the past 6 years. I’ve been in my current position as US history, government, and economics teacher for 3 years. […]

On November 7th, at a basketball game that was supposed to be our homecoming scrimmage, I sat at the scores table as a coach with Lana Comeaux, the superintendent. … Lana Comeaux at that time told me she was under pressure from the school board and they were looking for her to resign. She said that my name was also on the list of people that the board wanted to resign or fire. I asked why, and she said that a school board member had expressed to her that he believed I was an atheist and a liberal. She asked me if I was an atheist and I refused to answer the question. I said, “I won’t play this game. I didn’t know you had to take a religious test to be a teacher in the state of Texas.” Nothing was said after that point, although there was a lot of tension among the other coaches about whether they would be able to keep their jobs or not, because she also told them that many of them were on the list.

Then on January 7th, a student in my classroom in second period left my class, went to the Principal’s office, and told him that there was an inappropriate discussion in my classroom. I was informed by the principal, Richard Turner, that I needed to talk to her mother because she was very upset. Her mother came to class on January 7th, came to the school January 7th, very upset. She made some threats to me in the hallway. And then on January 8th, Mr. Turner informed me that I needed to call the parent, Mrs. Lowe. On January 9th, I had Vicki Smith, the school secretary, call “REDACTED” on my behalf to arrange a conference at 10:35 Monday, January 12th. Monday the 12th, I met with REDACTED and School Principal Richard Turner in his office. REDACTED was very angry. She accused me of being an atheist, saying I was too liberal, and that I allowed the students to talk about inappropriate things in the classroom. I told her that occasionally students would get on topics and say things, but I was unable to censor them before they were able to say them. She said that I called her daughter a name and I denied the accusation. But then she said that I didn’t believe in god and shouldn’t be teaching. She also said that she had spoken to 3 other board members who agreed with her that I shouldn’t be teaching because I was too liberal and I was an atheist.

On January 15th, there was a board meeting. Nothing was on the agenda concerning me. During the open forum, several audience members spoke to their concerns that I was an atheist and I was too liberal. On January 16th, I was called to Mr. Richard Turner’s office (my principal), and he informed me that I had been put on administrative leave with pay. The reasons, as stated to me by Mr. Turner at the time, were that I was accused of being an atheist and teaching atheism in the classroom, and I was too liberal. On January 23rd, Mr. Turner and members of the board met behind closed doors concerning my suspension and allegations that were directed at me. On January 24th, I received a certified letter from Mr. Turner that stated that the causes for my suspension apparently had been changed to inappropriate contact with students and comments. He admonished me in the letter for having contact with students who had text-messaged me during my first week of suspension, but I had not received any administrative directive, or anything in writing, prior to that time telling me I could not have contact with students. On January 26th, I called my lawyer REDACTED, with ATTE, and informed him of my situation that I was put on administrative leave with pay, pending an investigation.

I later had conversations with parents and a person who lives in the community, who informed me that the principal had met with the minister of the local church and had discussed my suspension with him. I also later received information from REDACTED,a “SCHOOL EMPLOYEE-POSITION REDACTED”, that the minister was now subbing at the school and that he had heard that he would be taking my position, or if I returned he would be co-teaching with me.

There have been a number of rumors in our community now concerning inappropriate behavior: high school girls coming to my class to supposedly smoke marijuana, all kinds of accusations made by the members of the missionary baptist church at which this minister is the preacher. In the January 24th letter from Mr. Richard Turner, my principal, I was also informed that my suspension had been extended indefinitely.

Sincerely,
Richard Mullens

Follow me below the fold as I explain why (in my guise as a former attorney) I believe the allegations in Mr. Mullens’ statement constitutes a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(cont.)
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress. Title VII deals with employment discrimination. Here’s the relevant part of the statutory language:

SUBCHAPTER VI—EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

§ 2000e. Definitions

For the purposes of this subchapter—

(j) The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

[…]

§ 2000e–2. Unlawful employment practices

(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The critical language is the definition of “religion” under Title VII, which specifically staes that it includes “belief.” That language has been interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to include a belief in any God or in no God. That is, “belief” includes those who are atheists, as the EEOC makes clear on their official website:

With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits:

· treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment);

· subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – or because of the religious practices or beliefs of people with whom they associate (e.g., relatives, friends, etc.); […]

1. What is “religion” under Title VII?

Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. […] Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.

Of course it isn’t just the EEOC which interprets the definition of “religion” in Title VII to include atheism. The federal courts have also consistently held that atheists are a protected class of employees under the law.

And so an atheist (which [the plaintiff] may or may not be) cannot be fired because his employer dislikes atheists. If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”

Indeed, even the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the State of Texas, has ruled, in YOUNG v. SOUTHWESTERN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 509 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1975), that an avowed atheist may bring a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In that case, Ms. Young, a bank teller, was required to attend mandatory “business meetings” which included “a short religious talk and a prayer, both delivered by a local Baptist minister.” She refused and resigned her position, then brought a lawsuit against the Savings and Loan for violating her rights against discrimination based on her religious belief. The trial court dismissed her claim on the basis that “that she had failed to demonstrate any act of discrimination against her arising out of the monthly staff meetings.” This is what the Court of Appeals stated in it’s majority opinion in her favor reversing the decision of the trial court:

[W]e believe that the district court incorrectly applied the law to the peculiar facts of this difficult case. We find that Mrs. Young was constructively discharged in circumstances which amounted to religious discrimination against her by Southwestern. […]

On the date of her departure, plaintiff knew only that attendance at the staff meetings was mandatory. Her supervisor had just assured her, in language that admitted no possibility of accommodation (for as far as [her supervisor] knew, no accommodation was possible), that Southwestern employees had a duty to attend the staff meetings in their entirety. [Her supervisor] did not propose a ceasefire or a standstill agreement; he demanded unconditional surrender to the company policy of compulsory attendance at religious services. We can only conclude that Mrs. Young acted reasonably and in a manner which preserved the full measure of her statutory rights. […]

Title VII was designed to restrain discrimination in employment because of religion. The subtle and unrealistic distinction drawn by Southwestern here between resignation and discharge does not deter us from enforcing the statutory mandate. Accommodation as a defense must be unsubtle, direct, undelayed and communicated without equivocation. The statutory defense of accommodation is not met by some post hoc hypothesis.

I suspect that an attorney advised the Brookeland School District of the relevant law regrding Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination against an employee based on his or her religious beliefs, and that, under the precedent stablished in the Young v. Southwestern case, that they couldn’t suspend Mr. Mullens because of his alleged belief in atheism after their initial action to suspend him from his teaching position based on his alleged “liberal and atheistic beliefs. This no doubt explains the post suspension letter changing the reasons for his suspension to “inappropriate contact with students and comments” as well as the ludicrous post-suspension rumors by members of the local Baptist church that Mr. Mullens, a teacher with an allegedly sterling record, had permitted students to smoke marijuana in his classroom and berated students who didn’t agree with him.

Nonetheless, a record has already been established at the school board meeting on where Mr Mullens was accused of being “too liberal and an atheist” and was immediately suspended thereafter by the school board, which predated the letter he subsequently received. If I was his attorney, I’d be delighted to take this case on his behalf. The school board is going to have to produce evidence that rebuts the presumption that he was suspended because he was accused of being an atheist, and likely will have to put witnesses on the stand who are willing to commit perjury to justify his dismissal. Meanwhile, former students of mr. Mullens have already come forward to support him, such as this comment by one of his former students posted at Democracy for America:

Hello,

My name is Justin Bentley and I graduated Brookeland ISD in 2007. I was the Salutatorian and Student Body President and I had a great relationship with all students and teachers. Mr. Mullens was by far one of my favorite and most respected teachers. He is an excellent teacher and has one of the best teaching methods I’ve ever encountered. On top of being very open-minded, he can practically recite a history book by memory. I find all the accusations to be completely ridiculous.

As stated, the school board is extremely conservative and narrow-minded. To be more precise, I would even go as far as saying they discriminate in many forms. If you asked half of the members of the board if they would allow their children to date a race or ethnicity other than their own, they would give you two comments; ‘No’, or ‘No Comment’.

Personally, I believe everything that has happened in the past few months is completely absurd and something needs to be done about it. Between Mrs. Lana Comeaux and Mr. Richard Mullens, Brookeland ISD was one of the most excelled schools in Texas and almost all students will agree. I believe I speak for most of the current Brookeland student body and recently graduated students when I say that things have gone too far.

Sincerely,

Justin Bentley

I sincerely hope that Mr. Mullens takes these bigots to the cleaners, and that he finds a position with better school system which will appreciate his efforts to educate his students to use their minds to reason critically rather than accept blindly what those in authority tell them to believe. Then again, certainly the poor benighted students of Brookeland, Texas are in desperate need of good teachers such as he is reputed to be.

Ps. Looks like the School District has already scrubbed any information about Mr. Mullens from his teacher page at their website.