Skip to Main Content
  • About Us
  • People
  • Capabilities
  • News & Insights
  • Events
  1. Insights
  2. Publications

See You In Court - July/August 2025

See You In Court

August 1, 2025

Lawyers

Thomas B. Mooney bio photo
Thomas B. Mooney

Partner

860.251.5710

tmooney@goodwin.com
  • -

    See You In Court by Tom Mooney link image

The Nutmeg Board of Education can be its own worst enemy.  Such was the case decades ago when the Board adopted a Public Complaints policy.  This policy acknowledges that parents and others with complaints should go through the chain of command, but a complaining party who is not satisfied can appeal at each step, up to and including the Board itself.  To make matters worse, the policy does not define or limit what a “complaint” is, and Nutmeg residents can file a complaint pursuant to the policy on just about anything.

That all said, the Public Complaints policy sat quietly in the policy book, ignored for many years.  Sadly, that changed recently when Pamela Parent ran across the Public Complaints policy and promptly filed a complaint about the biology curriculum.  Pamela stated in her complaint that she and her family are very “traditional” and that she and her children are adherents to the religion of Creationism.  Pamela’s concern is that her children are exposed to the theory of evolution in biology class, which conflicts with her religious beliefs.

To her credit, Pamela followed the chain of command, asking that her children be excused from classes in which evolution will be taught, starting with the biology teacher, then moving on to the principal, the assistant superintendent, and finally Mr. Superintendent.  Pamela did not ask for alternative instruction, and she said that her children could just hang out in the school office during such instruction.  However, educators at every level denied her request for accommodation.  Her last hope, she explained in her appeal, is action by the Board granting her request that her children be excused from instruction on the theory of evolution.

In accordance with the Public Complaints policy, the Board met last evening to hear Pamela’s complaint in executive session.  Pamela thanked Ms. Chairperson and the Board for the opportunity to be heard.  She professed her deep religious belief that the world and the creatures that inhabit it are simply too wonderful to have been created by natural processes, and, accordingly, the only reasonable explanation is that the world was created by the divine hand of God.  Evolution, Pamela went on, is just a theory that just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, and she does not want her children to learn about it.  

Veteran Board member Bob Bombast asked Pamela whether she was saying that Nutmeg shouldn’t be teaching evolution, and Pamela responded, “I leave to the Board and the Administration whether to teach evolution.  That is up to you.  My request relates only to my children, and I ask simply that I be notified when a lesson on evolution will be taught and that my children will be excused from that lesson.  What’s so hard about that?  Besides, according to the United States Supreme Court, this Board must grant my request.”

Mr. Superintendent then spoke.  “I don’t know what Pamela is talking about with respect to the Supreme Court, but I do respect Pamela’s right to follow whatever religion she wants.  However, it would be highly disruptive of our instructional program if parents could identify subjects in the curriculum to which they object and then require that teachers keep track of their objections and excuse their children from that instruction.”  

Is the Nutmeg Board obligated to grant this request? 

*          *          *

Until last month, one would simply respond that such excusal is not required.  However, a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court complicates the analysis.  One can reasonably predict that excusal of high school students from instruction on evolution is still not required, as described below.  However, school officials must now consider such requests carefully and weigh the factors the Court identified to decide whether the instruction in question burdens religious exercise, and, if so, whether there are reasonable alternatives to requiring that students participate in such instruction, such as excusal. 

Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 (U.S. 2025) involved a claim by parents that their free exercise rights were violated by the refusal of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Board of Education to permit excusal of children at parent request from instruction that included what the Court described as “a variety of ‘LGBTQ+ inclusive’ storybooks into the elementary school curriculum.”  The Montgomery County Board adopted these books in the curriculum, prescribing that they be available for students to read and, importantly, that teachers be sure to include these books in their instruction.  Moreover, teachers were given a discussion guide regarding the use of these books in instruction, and that discussion guide stated that teachers should respond to student questions about gender identity and expression by promoting a single view of acceptance, which responses the plaintiffs claimed in this case contradicted the religious views they wished to inculcate in their children.

The Court ruled in favor of the parents.  First, the Court found that use of these books in instructing elementary students as young as kindergarten burdened the parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children in a way that posed “‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wished to instill in their children.”  Second, given that burden, it applied the “strict scrutiny” test, holding that the Montgomery County Board of Education had failed to demonstrate that its policy of using these books in the curriculum and denying requests for excusal “advances ‘interests of the highest order’ and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.”  The Court went on to conclude that the district’s actions were not narrowly tailored because excusal was possible (and had been permitted in the past), and it ordered that use of these books without permitting excusal be enjoined pending further consideration of the parents’ claims.

In directing that an injunction be issued, the Court signaled that the parents have a winning case.  The implications of this case will become clearer over time, in part through further litigation over excusal requests.  However, the Court did provide guidance that suggests that excusal of high school students from instruction on the theory of evolution would not be required.  Crucial to the Court’s holding were the age of the students involved (kindergarten through fifth grade) and the fact that the instruction of these young children was to include moral judgments about matters of gender identity and expression.  In the Court’s words, we must ask whether such instructional materials are “presented in a neutral manner, or are they presented in a manner that is ‘hostile’ to religious viewpoints and designed to impose upon students a ‘pressure to conform’?”  

Three Justices vehemently dissented, but the majority opinion is now the law.  Under Connecticut law, parents have the right to have their children excused from AIDS instruction, family life education, firearm safety programs, dissection, and sexual abuse and assault awareness.  School officials must now consider other parent requests for excusal when they claim that instruction in certain topics burden the religious upbringing of their children, but the Court’s holding is narrow in scope and it will be difficult to meet that burden in many cases.

Finally, one might hope that this situation is a wake-up call in Nutmeg.  No complaint policy should empower parents or others to demand a hearing unilaterally because boards would thereby lose control of their agenda.  Whether to provide a hearing to persons making a complaint should be a decision that the board of education reserves to itself. 

Related Practices

  • School Law
  • Public and Charter Schools

Related Industries

  • Education

Keep in Touch

Stay current with our latest insights

Manage Subscriptions
  • Lawyers
  • Capabilities
  • Events
  • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
  • Pro Bono and Community
  • Blogs and Resource Centers
  • Insights
  • Podcasts
  • Dobbs Decision Resource Center
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Accessibility Statement

© Shipman & Goodwin LLP 2025. All Rights Reserved