Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010)
Shelley Evans-Marshall (plaintiff) was an English teacher for the Tipp City Board of Education (board) (defendant). During the 2001–2002 school year, Evans-Marshall assigned Fahrenheit 451 as a reading assignment. Afterward, Evans-Marshall divided the class into groups and had the groups choose a book from a list of the most frequently challenged books, compiled by the American Library Association. Two groups chose Heather Has Two Mommies. The board received a parent complaint about the book, and the principal told Evans-Marshall to have the groups choose a different book. Evans-Marshall complied and then assigned Siddhartha as the next book for the whole class to read and discuss. Evans-Marshall wanted the class to discuss spirituality, Buddhism, romantic relationships, personal growth, and familial relationships. During the October 2001 meeting of the board, parents complained about several books in the school’s curriculum and library. The parents spoke for over an hour and focused on Siddhartha. One group of parents presented a petition with 500 signatures calling for decency and excellence in the classroom. Following the meeting, Evans-Marshall asked a school staff member to make copies of examples of student writing samples that were given to students who had asked for additional guidance. One sample contained a first-hand account of a rape, and one sample was a story about a young boy who murdered a priest and desecrated a church. The school principal discovered these samples and confronted Evans-Marshall. The principal directed Evans-Marshall not to use those samples. A few months later, the board decided not to renew Evans-Marshall’s contract for the following school year. The board held a formal hearing on the nonrenewal at Evan-Marshall’s request. After the hearing, the board again voted against renewing Evan-Marshall’s contract. Evans-Marshall sued the board, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right to select books and methods of instruction for use in the classroom without interference from public officials. The trial court ruled in favor of the board, and Evans-Marshall appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sutton, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.