Well, fortunately, there is a record, and it is public.
Below is the text of the letter sent by the school district to the coach that summarizes what happened that ultimately lead to his dismissal. Following receipt of the letter, the coach went ahead and did the same thing the following week (briefly said a prayer by himself at the center of the field while the players were off celebrating) and he was fired.
No kids were coerced into participating. He made a public prayer, by himself, and the school was pizzed about it.
The record is 376 pages long, if you care to read it. I skimmed through a sizable amount of it. It's actually kind of interesting.
Here is the letter.
JA 90
Letter From A. Leavell to J. Kennedy
(Oct. 23, 2015)
Dear Coach Kennedy:
OnSeptember17,2015,I provided you with
guidance and a set of standards for compliance with
Bremerton School District Board Policy 2340. Those
directives were in response to your prior practices
involving on-the-job prayer with players in the
Bremerton High School football program, both in the
locker room prior to games as well as on the field
immediately following games. In general, I believe
that you have attempted to comply with the guidelines
set forth in that letter.
However, immediately following the end of the
homecoming game on October 16, 2015, you knelt at
midfield and bowed your head in prayer. While most
of the BHS players were at that moment engaged in
the traditional singing of the school fight song to the
audience, your intention to pray at midfield following
the game was widely publicized, including through
your own media appearances.
I wish to emphasize my appreciation for your
efforts to comply with the September 17 directives.
Nevertheless, I find it necessary to clarify the
District’s expectations going forward. As was
discussed in that letter:
Many decades of federal court litigation,
including decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, have fleshed out the meaning
of the First Amendment’s Establishment
Clause and Free Exercise Clause. In the
public schools context, it is clear that schools
and their employees may not directly prohibit
JA 91
students from participating in religious
activities, nor may they require students to
participate in religious activities. Further, it
is equally clear that school staff may not
indirectly encourage students to engage in
religious activity (or discourage them from
doing so),or even engage in action that is
likely to be perceived as endorsing (or
opposing) religion or religious activity. In
short, schools and their employees, while
performing their job duties, must remain
neutral—allowing non-disruptive student
religious activity, while neither endorsing nor
discouraging it.
Federal case law makes clear that a violation of
the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
Establishment Clause occurs if a school employee
engages in conduct which a reasonable observer,
familiar with the history and context of the conduct,
would perceive as government endorsement of
religion. I again emphasize that the District does not
prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by
employees while on the job.However, as my
September 17 letter stated, such exercise must not
interfere with the performance of job responsibilities,
and must not lead to a perception of District
endorsement of religion. I conclude that your conduct
of October16, 2015,is not consistent with these
requirements.
As the District has emphasized to your legal
representatives, paid assistant coaches in District
athletic programs are responsible for supervision of
students not only prior to and during the course of
JA 92
games, but also during the activities following games
and until players are released to their parents or
otherwise allowed to leave. Supervision of students,
including in dressing rooms, is explicitly listed among
the responsibilities of assistant coaches in the District.
Indeed, I have confirmed with your head coach that for
over ten years, all assistant coaches have had assigned
duties both before and after each game and have been
expected to remain with the team until the last
student has left the event; that until recently, you
regularly came to the locker room with the team and
other coaches following the game; that you have been
among the assistant coaches with specific
responsibility for the supervision of players in the
locker room following games; and that you have helped
in the supervision of students until they are picked up
by parents or leave the facility, including during post-
game meetings between the head coach and
coordinators. From this review, I am satisfied that you
are and have been aware that as a paid assistant
coach, you remain on duty following games until the
last student has left the event. If that has been
unclear, I trust any confusion on your part as to these
expectations has now been remedied.
Thus, when you engaged in religious exercise
immediately following the game on October 16, you
were still on duty for the District. You were at the
event, and on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-
logoed attire,in front of an audience of event
attendees, solely by virtue of your employment by the
District. The field is not an open forum to which
members of the public are invited following completion
of games; but even if it were, you continued to have job
responsibilities, including the supervision of players.
JA 93
While I understand that your religious exercise was
fleeting, it nevertheless drew you away from your
work. More importantly, any reasonable observer saw
a District employee, on the field only by virtue of his
employment with the District, still on duty, under the
bright lights of the stadium, engaged in what was
clearly, given your prior public conduct, overtly
religious conduct. And there were many such
observers: The game had ended mere moments earlier.
Under federal court precedent, a court would almost
certainly find your conduct on October 16, in the
course of your District employment, to constitute
District endorsement of religion in violation of the
United States Constitution. That same case law not
only allows, but requires, the District to prohibit such
violations from recurring. In addition, Washington
courts have held that Article IX Section 4 of the
Washington Constitution, which provides that public
schools “shall be forever free from sectarian control or
influence,” imposes an even more strict prohibition on
public agency endorsement of religion.
I wish to again emphasize that the District does
not prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by its
employees. However, it must prohibit any conduct by
employees that would serve as District endorsement
of religion. I have explained above why your conduct
of October 16 violates that expectation. On the other
hand, I wish to make it clear that religious exercise
that would not be perceived as District endorsement,
and which does not otherwise interfere with the
performance of job duties, can and will be
accommodated. Development of accommodations is an
interactive process, and should you wish to continue
to engage in private exercise while on the job, the
JA 94
District will be happy to discuss options for that to
occur in a manner that will not violate the law.
It is common for schools to provide an employee
whose faith requires a particular form of exercise with
a private location to engage in such exercise during
the work day, not observable to students or the public,
so long as this does not interfere with performance of
job responsibilities. For example, a private location
within the school building, athletic facility or press box
could be made available to you for brief religious
exercise before and after games, if this will not
interfere with your assigned duties. Please let me
know if you would like to discuss such
accommodations.
Finally, I would like to remind you of what I said
in my September 17 letter: That is, the District values
very highly your positive contributions to the BHS
football program, and in particular, your motivational
and inspirational talks to the players. In that letter, I
assured you that you could continue that practice,
focusing on appropriate themes such as unity,
teamwork, responsibility, safety and endeavor. After
the game immediately following that letter, you
provided such a talk to the players of both teams,
while remaining entirely secular. That talk was well
received,and appreciated by the District and the
community. I would certainly encourage continuation
of that practice.
To summarize: While on duty for the District as
an assistant coach, you may not engage in
demonstrative religious activity, readily observable to
(if not intended to be observed by) students and the
attending public. You may not repeat your conduct of
JA 95
October 16, 2015, for the reasons discussed above.
Given the severity and likelihood of liability faced by
the District in the event of further violations of these
directives, any further violations will be grounds for
discipline, up to and including discharge from District
employment. It is my hope that you will choose to
honor these expectations, and .continue your positive
work with the BHS football program for the remainder
of this season.
Sincerely,
[handwritten: signature]
Aaron Leavell, Ed.D.
Superintendent
