Staci Barber, a teacher at Cardiff Junior High in the Katy Independent School District, alleged that Principal Bryan Scott Rounds prohibited her from praying on school grounds whenever students might observe her. The dispute arose in September 2023 when Barber invited staff to a 'See You at the Pole' prayer event before the school day began. Rounds responded with emails stating that employees could not pray with or in the presence of students, clarifying that even if the prayer occurred before students arrived, the teachers would still be visible to students waiting at the building entrance. When Barber and colleagues proceeded to pray near the flagpole, Rounds stopped them, citing a policy against prayer where students 'might see' or 'be influenced' by the conduct. Barber sued Rounds in his individual and official capacities, alleging violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Texas law. The district court denied Rounds' motion to dismiss regarding the First Amendment and equal protection claims, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged a categorical ban on visible religious expression and that such a ban violated clearly established law. Rounds appealed the denial of qualified immunity for those claims.
The Fifth Circuit applied the two-part qualified immunity framework: determining whether the facts alleged show a constitutional violation and whether that right was clearly established. The court first addressed the scope of the complaint, accepting Barber's allegations as true. The complaint described a 'categorical, visibility-based prohibition' on teacher prayer extending to any setting where students might observe the teacher, not just during student-led events. The court found this conduct plausibly violated the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. Relying on Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court noted that the Supreme Court rejected the premise that religious expression by a public-school employee may be restricted merely because students might observe it. Kennedy established that a teacher engaging in personal prayer outside official duties is doubly protected, and schools cannot impose categorical bans based solely on the possibility of student visibility. Because Kennedy was decided before the alleged conduct, the right was clearly established, and Rounds was not entitled to immunity on the First Amendment claims. Regarding the equal protection claim, the court held that a plaintiff must allege that the defendant personally engaged in disparate treatment. Barber's complaint alleged that the school district treated her differently from other employees but failed to allege that Rounds himself failed to discipline others or acted with discriminatory intent. Generalized allegations of district-wide disparate treatment were insufficient to establish Rounds' personal involvement. Consequently, the court found no constitutional violation by Rounds individually on the equal protection claim, entitling him to qualified immunity on that specific count.
The decision affirms that school officials cannot impose blanket bans on teacher prayer simply because students might see it, reinforcing the protections established in Kennedy v. Bremerton. However, it limits the scope of individual liability for equal protection claims, requiring plaintiffs to plead specific facts showing the official's personal involvement in disparate treatment. The case is remanded to the district court to proceed on the First Amendment claims while the equal protection claim against Rounds in his individual capacity is dismissed. The claims against the school district in its official capacity and other claims remain pending.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download