## Facts

- John E. Peloza, a public high school biology teacher, was required by district curriculum and state education requirements to teach evolution as a major theme in biology instruction.
- Peloza alleged evolution constituted a religious belief system (“evolutionism”) and that the district’s mandate forced him to teach and advance that “religion.”
- He claimed the district’s curricular requirements and related restrictions violated the Establishment Clause, compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment, and violated Due Process.
- Peloza also asserted he should be permitted to teach creationism as science or to refrain from presenting evolution as factual, consistent with his religious beliefs.
- He alleged harassment and intimidation based on his Christian faith and pleaded a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) premised on anti-Christian, class-based animus.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims for failure to state a claim, dismissed state-law claims after rejecting federal jurisdiction, and imposed about $32,000 in fees and sanctions under Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- Peloza appealed the dismissal of his federal claims and the sanctions award; he did not pursue an Equal Protection theory on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a public school biology teacher to teach evolution violates the Establishment Clause on the theory that evolution is a religion.
2. Whether curricular requirements compelling instruction in evolution and restricting presentation of creationism as science violate the teacher’s First Amendment speech rights or Due Process.
3. Whether allegations of hostility toward Christians state a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim based on class-based discriminatory animus.
4. Whether the suit was sufficiently frivolous to justify Rule 11 sanctions and attorney’s fees under § 1988.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Peloza’s federal constitutional and statutory claims and affirmed dismissal of the pendent state claims.
- The court held that teaching evolution in public school science classes is a secular educational activity and does not establish religion.
- The court held Peloza failed to state a Free Speech or Due Process claim because the district could require adherence to the prescribed curriculum and restrict use of classroom time for religious advocacy.
- The court held Peloza did not plead a viable § 1985(3) conspiracy claim because his allegations did not satisfy requirements for a concrete conspiracy and qualifying class-based animus.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s Rule 11 and § 1988 sanctions and fee award, concluding the claims were not so frivolous as to warrant the imposed penalties.

## Legal Principles

- Public school instruction in evolution as part of a science curriculum is treated as secular education, not governmental endorsement of religion.
- School districts may set and enforce curriculum for teachers acting within their official teaching duties and may prohibit presenting religious doctrine as science during instructional time.
- Restrictions on teacher religious advocacy toward students during the school day may be justified to avoid government endorsement of religion and to maintain the secular character of classroom instruction.
- A § 1985(3) claim requires plausible allegations of a conspiracy and discriminatory, class-based animus; conclusory assertions tied to enforcement of a neutral curriculum are insufficient.
- Even when claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), sanctions and prevailing-defendant fees require a showing that the action was frivolous or otherwise sanctionable under applicable standards.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a school district may require a biology teacher to teach evolution as secular science and may limit classroom instruction to the prescribed curriculum without violating the Establishment Clause, Free Speech, or Due Process; it also rejected a § 1985(3) conspiracy theory based on alleged anti-Christian bias, but reversed the district court’s attorney’s fee and sanctions award as unwarranted.


Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994)