## Facts

- The Drew Municipal Separate School District’s superintendent implemented an unwritten rule that any parent of a child born out of wedlock was automatically disqualified from school-system employment.
- The rule was imposed without prior board approval but was later ratified by the school board.
- Lestine Rogers, a teacher aide, was told she would not be rehired because she had an illegitimate child.
- Katie Mae Andrews applied for a teacher aide position and was rejected once the district learned she was an unwed parent.
- The policy operated as a categorical bar without individualized consideration of job performance, present conduct, or changed circumstances.
- The plaintiffs challenged the policy under the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging irrational classification and denial of any opportunity to show present fitness.

## Issues

1. Whether an absolute rule disqualifying parents of children born out of wedlock from school employment is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether treating unwed parenthood as conclusive proof of immorality and unfitness, without any individualized opportunity to rebut that presumption, violates the Due Process Clause.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the rule was unconstitutional.
- The court held the policy violated equal protection because it was overinclusive, irrational, and unsupported by evidence connecting unwed parenthood to job unfitness or harm to the school mission.
- The court held the policy violated due process because it imposed an irrebuttable presumption of immorality and denied affected individuals any meaningful opportunity to demonstrate current moral character and fitness for employment.
- Declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- Under equal protection, a public employer’s categorical employment disqualification must bear a rational relationship to legitimate governmental objectives; unsupported assumptions and crude generalizations are insufficient.
- A blanket “morality” rule that equates a past personal circumstance with permanent unfitness can be unconstitutional where it ignores individual circumstances and change over time.
- Due process is violated when the government uses an irrebuttable presumption to impose serious employment consequences without allowing an individualized showing that the presumed fact (e.g., immorality) is not true.
- Public employment restrictions tied to moral condemnation must be connected to job-related concerns through evidence and administered with constitutionally adequate procedures.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit invalidated the school district’s automatic exclusion of unwed parents from employment, holding that the rule lacked a rational basis under equal protection and unlawfully imposed an irrebuttable presumption of immorality without individualized process.


Andrews v. Drew Municipal Separate School District, 507 F.2d 611 (5th Cir. 1975)