Forest Hills Early Learning Center, Inc. v. Lukhard

661 F. Supp. 300, 40 Educ. L. Rep. 239, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4006
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedMay 15, 1987
DocketCiv. A. 80-0116-R
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 661 F. Supp. 300 (Forest Hills Early Learning Center, Inc. v. Lukhard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Forest Hills Early Learning Center, Inc. v. Lukhard, 661 F. Supp. 300, 40 Educ. L. Rep. 239, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4006 (E.D. Va. 1987).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court following a remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiffs are nonsectarian operators of child care centers. They brought this action challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s statutory exemption of religiously affiliated child care centers from the general licensing requirements imposed upon the operation of such centers by the Commonwealth. The action is nominally against the named Director of the Department of Social Services in his official capacity. The complaint seeks a declaration that the ex *303 emption is unconstitutional and injunctive relief compelling general application of the child care licensing provisions tb all child care centers irrespective of religious affiliation. Defendant-intervenors Grace Baptist Church, Tabernacle Baptist Church, Berean Baptist Church and The Rock Church represent a class of sectarian operators of child care centers that intervened to demonstrate the existence of free exercise rights in the exempted activities. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the exemption statute, Va.Code § 63.1-196.3, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and enters judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs Forest Hills Early Learning Center, Inc., Academy Day Care, Inc., and Holloman Child Care Centers, Inc. filed their original complaint against William Lukhard in his official capacity in 1979. United States District Judge Warriner held that, because the secular centers’ claims of injury were pure speculation, they had no standing to sue. 480 F.Supp. 636 (E.D.Va.1979). Plaintiffs filed a second complaint in 1980, alleging “substantial injury” but the District Court again held that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. 487 F.Supp. 1378 (E.D.Va.1980). That decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which held dismissal on that basis erroneous and remanded for further consideration of the standing issue on an expanded record. Forest Hills Early Learning Center, Inc. v. Lukhard, No. 80-1272 (4th Cir. Jan. 9, 1981) (unpublished), listed at 642 F.2d 448. On remand, the District Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing but granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 540 F.Supp. 1046 (E.D.Va.1982). The District Court held: (1) the exemption statute had a secular legislative purpose; (2) the statute’s primary effect was not to advance religion; (3) the statute did not foster excessive government entanglement with religion; (4) the statute did not violate the establishment clause; and (5) the statute did not violate the equal protection clause.

The plaintiffs appealed the judgment of the District Court to the Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the District Court. 728 F.2d 230 (4th Cir.1984). The Fourth Circuit held that the Commonwealth of Virginia failed to establish the existence of free exercise rights justifying the exemption as an accommodation of free exercise rights. The Fourth Circuit noted that the accommodation of free exercise rights could provide a “saving ‘secular purpose’ for the exemption under establishment clause challenge.” 728 F.2d at 241. The Fourth Circuit suggested class intervention of sectarian institutions to allow an efficient adjudication of the existence of any free exercise rights in the exempted activities, but instructed the District Court that if class intervention did not occur, it should enter judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional. Id. at 247.

On remand, the District Court denied class certification and entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit stated that the District Court “misapprehended the purport of our decision and nullified entirely the purposes of a remand herein,” necessitating return to the District Court once more “for the purposes stated in our earlier opinion herein.” 1 789 F.2d 295 (4th Cir.1986).

Factual Background 2

The Commonwealth of Virginia has regulated all child care centers since at least 1948 by requiring these centers to meet certain licensing standards. From 1968 to 1979, all persons who operated child care centers, without regard to sectarian or nonsectarian affiliation, were required to comply with the licensing requirements of Va. Code §§ 63.1-195 through 63.1-219 and the regulations promulgated thereunder. An *304 applicant for a license under these provisions was required to submit an application to the Commissioner of the Department of Welfare 3 containing an outline of the center’s proposed activities, facilities and services, § 63.1-197; the Commissioner was then required to investigate the applicant’s proposal and to inquire into the character, reputation and financial responsibility of the applicant, § 63.1-198. The applicant was required to grant the Commissioner reasonable opportunity to inspect its facilities, books and records and to interview its employees and agents. Id.

If the Commissioner found that the applicant’s operation was reasonably conducive to the welfare of the children it might serve and that the applicant’s financial responsibility gave reasonable assurance of continued maintenance of its operation, the Commissioner was to issue a license, § 63.-1-199. The Commissioner retained the right to inspect the center and to interview any employee or customer of the center at reasonable times, § 63.1-210. In addition to complying with these statutory requirements, a person seeking a license for operating a center had to comply with regulations drawn up by the State Board of Welfare that prescribe general standards and policies for the operation of child care centers. See § 63.1-202.

During the early 1970’s, the number of child care centers in Virginia increased significantly to meet the rising demand for outside-the-home child day care. As the number of centers increased, the Virginia Department of Welfare received numerous complaints that many of the centers were providing inadequate facilities, meals and supervision. Based upon an investigation, the Department determined that many centers were sacrificing the best interests of the children in order to maintain financial stability and to offer competitive prices. The Department further determined that many parents never visited a center before they enrolled their children there and that decisions concerning the choice of a center were often made without any parental knowledge or information about the centers.

The Department thereupon concluded that the regulations concerning licensing and operation should be upgraded to insure that the pressures of a competitive marketplace did not intrude upon the well-being of children utilizing the service of a center. In 1976, the State Board promulgated new and more stringent regulations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ronald Troy Caldwell v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
White v. State
50 S.W.3d 31 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Department of Social Services v. Emmanuel Baptist Preschool
455 N.W.2d 1 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1990)
North Valley Baptist Church v. McMahon
696 F. Supp. 518 (E.D. California, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
661 F. Supp. 300, 40 Educ. L. Rep. 239, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forest-hills-early-learning-center-inc-v-lukhard-vaed-1987.