People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is an organization based in California in the United States which campaigns against the public funding of Waldorf methods charter schools alleging they violate the United States Constitution's separation of church and state. The group claims independent Waldorf schools and public Waldorf methods charter schools teach anthroposophical content, that this content is religious in nature, and that the schools disguise the anthroposophical content from the public. PLANS filed federal suit in 1998 against two California public school districts, Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, to halt the Waldorf methods educational programs implemented in two of their schools. The case was ultimately dismissed on its merits in 2012.
The group was founded in 1995 and became a California non-profit corporation in 1997. Its founding officers, president Debra Snell and secretary Dan Dugan are former Waldorf school parents. The organization numbered less than 50 members when the lawsuit was brought.Deposition testimony by Debra Snell, PLANS vs SCUSD, TRESD 1999
Mission statement
The group describes its mission as to
"Provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner." "Expose the illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in the US." "Litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the US."
PLANS lawsuit
In February 1998, PLANS filed suit against two California public school districts, Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, operating Waldorf-methods schools; one operating a Waldorf-based charter school and the other operating a Waldorf-based magnet school. In the complaint, PLANS argued that it was "informed and believes that a primary purpose and primary effect of said operation of Waldorf schools is to advance religion, including the religious doctrines of Anthroposophy", and as such were acting in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article IX of the California Constitution."Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief", PLANS, Inc v Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, filed U.S. District Court Eastern District of California No. Civ. S 98-266, filed 2/11/98
In response to PLANS' 1999 Motion for Summary Judgement, the Court ruled against their contention that the primary purpose of the program in those schools was to advance religion, finding that the two school districts targeted have a secular, non-religious purpose for implementing Waldorf teaching methods in their schools, but allowed the case to proceed on the second question, whether a primary effect of the programs may be the unintended consequence of endorsing any religion to an extent that violates the Constitution."Memorandum and Order", dated 9/24/99, PLANS, Inc v Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, filed U.S. District Court Eastern District of California No. Civ. S 98-266. As to "primary purpose", see p18 section "i. Secular Purpose", "The question is whether the school districts can articulate any secular purpose for adopting the Waldorf teaching method....PLANS concedes that the school districts have done so, and presents no relevant evidence casting doubt on those articulations." As to "primary effect", see p19 section "ii. Primary Effect", "PLANS has raised a disputed issue of material fact concerning the religious underpinnings of Waldorf education and whether public funding of Waldorf education has the unintended consequence of advancing Anthroposophy."(p22)
Case dismissed on its merits
The trial was scheduled on September 12, 2005, and was expected to run for 16 days. The presiding judge determined two issues to be decided in the trial. The first issue was to determine if anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes - the defendants contended it was not. The second issue, which required first an affirmative ruling that anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes, would decide whether the public schools in those two districts were promoting anthroposophy to an extent that violated the U.S. Constitution."Third Amended Pretrial Conference Order" dated 4/19/2005, PLANS, Inc v Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, filed U.S. District Court Eastern District of California No. Civ. S 98-266. p15, "A bench trial is scheduled for September 12, 2005. The estimated length of trial is sixteen days." p14, "XVI:Separate Trial of Issues: Trial shall be bifurcated. Trial solely on the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion shall precede trial of all remaining issues. Trial of remaining issues, if necessary, will immediately follow trial solely on the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion."
The trial convened as scheduled, but ended in 30 minutes after PLANS failed in their legal burden to present an offer of proof (proffer) of evidence sufficient to prove anthroposophy was a religion. PLANS' attorney told the court PLANS could not meet its burden, and that as a result of earlier evidentiary rulings before the court, it could furnish no witnesses at trial to testify anthroposophy was a religion."Transcript of Court Trial" held 9/12/05 before Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., PLANS, Inc v Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, filed U.S. District Court Eastern District of California No. Civ. S 98-266. Transcript notes trial commenced at 1:30 p.m. and concluded 2:01 pm. Quotes from transcripts, (The Court): "The Court indicated the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion for establishment causes is indeed the threshold issue. I have reviewed the trial briefs of the parties, I have looked at the exhibit list and the witness list, and in doing so, as I indicated in the past, I'm going to require a proffer, Mr. Kendall, on that issue." (Mr. Kendall):"The only witnesses that we would have been able to offer with regard to this question of anthroposophy--I worked on alternative ways of doing it--would be [named]. You've excluded both of those on the grounds I did not disclose them. I don't think that's the case, but that is the Court's order. Without those witnesses, I don't believe we'll be able to sustain our burden of proof." (The Court): Then you have no proffer; that's what you're telling me?" (Mr. Kendall): "That's what I'm telling you." See also proffer. PLANS did attempt to introduce one piece of documentary evidence on the religion issue. Arguments were heard, but no evidence was presented during the trial. The court ruled that PLANS failed its evidentiary burden of proof, and ordered the case be dismissed on the merits."Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law", "5. At the trial on September 12, 2005, the court required Plaintiff to make an offer of proof as to how it would prove that anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes given its limited exhibits and witnesses. 6. Plaintiff's counsel first stated that he had "no proffer" based on the court's prior ruling...7. Plaintiff's counsel then stated that he had one item of evidence to support Plaintiff's case that anthroposophy is a religion, namely, Plaintiff's Exhibit 89...11. Plaintiff did not proffer any further exhibits or witnesses on the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. 12. Plaintiff rested its case on the threshold issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion...B. Conclusions of Law: 1. Plaintiff failed to carry its evidentiary burden of establishing that anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the [constitution]. 2. Plaintiff's only proffered evidence, Exhibit 89, is inadmissible for a variety of reasons. Plaintiff did not offer any foundation to support admissibility of the Exhibit[], nor did Plaintiff authenticate the Exhibit[]. Moreover, the Exhibit is rank hearsay and is not an "adoptive admission" under the exception to the hearsay rule...IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits, and that Defendants recover their costs."
Decision is appealed
PLANS filed a notice of appeal of the decision in November, 2005."United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Civil Appeals Docketing Statement", PLANS, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v Sacramento City Unified School District, Twin Ridges Elementary School District, USCA Docket # 05-17193 The appeal claims that the earlier rulings preventing PLANS from calling two defense expert witnesses for their own case-in-chief left them no witnesses able to give evidence that anthroposophy was a religion."Appleant's Opening Brief" , filed 3/13/2006, United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit, PLANS, Inc. v Sacramento City Unified School District, Twin Ridges Elementary School District, # 05-17193, "The case was bifurcated with the matter of whether or not Anthroposophy was a religion to be tried first. All of the witnesses PLANS intended to use for this part of the trial had been excluded by the court, and PLANS could not proceed." The earlier rulings resulted from pretrial motions submitted six months prior to trial. The two witnesses PLANS wished to call were first disclosed by the defendants as witnesses against PLANS in the case."Amended Pretrial Conference Order", dated 3/16/206, PLANS, Inc v Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, # 05-17193, p10, "Plaintiff will not be permitted to call defendant's designated expert witnesses or defendants' previously-designated expert witnesses." PLANS argues in the appeal that an automatic disclosure rule cited by the judge, though in effect at the time of trial in 2005, was not in effect in 1998 when the case was filed, and claims the witnesses were fully disclosed under the applicable rules."Appleant's Opening Brief" , filed 3/13/2006, United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit, PLANS, Inc. v Sacramento City Unified School District, Twin Ridges Elementary School District, # 05-17193, "No party ever disclosed under Rule 26, as this case originated in 1997[sic], when the Eastern District had opted out of Rule 26. All of the discovery in this case, by all parties, had been conducted through propounded discovery--depositions, interrogatories, admissions, request for production of documents."
Case again dismissed on its merits