In the spring of 1997, PLANS initiated a publicity campaign against Oak Ridge Elementary School, a public Waldorf-methods magnet school in Sacramento, distributing leaflets which falsely suggested to parents, including many recent Hmong and Mien immigrants, who did not speak English well, that the Waldorf program was part of a "cult" involved in teaching witchcraft to the children. In response, a number of parents picketed and boycotted the school. 

The local Sacramento Bee newspaper found no evidence at the school to support PLANS' claims, but a television news report of the picketing which repeated the allegations prompted interest in filing a lawsuit against the school and its school district.

Funding to support the litigation, based on allegations of Wicca based religious practices at the Waldorf method school, was sought through and supported by a right wing law organization, Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), that otherwise fights to abolish the United States' constitutional separation of church and state and supports distribution of Christian literature in public buildings.

The Oak Ridge School was subsequently reorganized and renamed the John Morse Waldorf Methods School. The lawsuit was filed in February, 1998.

Two school districts are named as defendants in the litigation: Sacramento City Unified School District, that supports one school as a Waldorf-methods magnet school, and the Twin Ridges Elementary School District, that today supports four schools as Waldorf-methods charter schools.

The schools targeted are John Morse Waldorf Methods School in the city of Sacramento and the Yuba River Charter School in the Sierra foothills.

According to the litigation, the operation of the two Waldorf-methods schools has as a "primary purpose and primary effect" "to advance religion, including the religious doctrines of anthroposophy" in a way that, according to the group, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The two school districts disputed the litigation, and in May 1999 the Sacramento School District moved for a summary judgment in the case.

While this was denied, the court in 1999 and 2001 in two steps has ruled against the litigation.

In September 1999 it ruled against the central allegation in the litigation, finding that the two school districts and the two schools involved, using Waldorf methods, have a secular, non religious purpose for their operation.

It however also let the case proceed, to investigate whether the two public Waldorf programs targeted in the litigation might have the unintended consequence of directly and substantially endorsing 'religion', and fostering an excessive entanglement between church and state, and the case was expected to be heard in February, 2000.

This however did not take place, and, after delays, the case -- again -- was expected to be heard in February, this time 2001, but it was postponed to June. A decision in March, 2001, by an appellate court in New York led to a review of the case. The judge ruled that PLANS did not have taxpayer standing and dismissed the case on May 23, 2001.

Following this ruling, PLANS filed an appeal with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which in February, 2003, reversed the decision on taxpayer standing by the lower court and returned the case.

In May, 2004, PLANS presented a motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, requesting that the court rule (1) that anthroposophy is a religion for the purposes of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and (2) that the Waldorf methods used by the public schools promote anthroposophy, based on the pretrial record, as a matter of law.

The school districts presented counter arguments including a declaration by Douglas Sloan, an expert witness on anthroposophy and religion. The Anthroposophical Society in America filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendants.

On November 15, 2004, the court denied the motion by PLANS for summary judgment.

The ruling concludes that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether anthroposophy is a religion, and finds that the school districts have set forth considerable evidence that anthroposophy is a philosophy, not a religion.

It also concludes that triable issues of material fact exist whether the Waldorf methods of education, implemented at the John Morse Waldorf Methods School and the Yuba River Charter School, advances and promotes anthroposophy in the substantial way alleged by PLANS in its litigation.

A pretrial conference was held on February 11, 2005. The Court set the deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony or evidence as March 11, 2005.

In April, 2005, the Court filed an order outlining the trial issues and the evidentiary and procedural guidelines for the trial.

The order denies PLANS eleven witnesses for failure by its attorney to make timely disclosure to Defendants and 101 of PLANS' exhibits as a result of discovery sanctions.

The case was to be conducted as a bifurcated trial, first addressing the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If the Court determined that to be the case, it would proceed to issues related to whether the Waldorf inspired methodology, employed by the concerned schools, advances and promotes anthroposophy to such an extent, that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

The trial was conducted on September 12, 2005 in Federal Court. While scheduled for sixteen days, the trial closed after 30 minutes. The Plaintiff PLANS failed to provide any admissible evidence that anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. 

PLANS announced that they will appeal the trial outcome: "PLANS was unable to put on its case because of the court's evidentiary rulings, which we believe to be both erroneous and prejudicial."

The defendant school districts filed a motion for judgment and listed their objections to the one item of evidence, The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide, a booklet by Eugene Schwartz, which PLANS had attempted to introduce as evidence that anthroposophy is a religion. The motion for final judgment was that Plaintiff had failed to prove the threshold issue that anthroposophy is a religion and thus under Rule 52(c) all other issues of the case may be disposed.

PLANS filed objections to the exclusion witnesses and exhibits: "the defendants ... caused the court to exclude a series of percipient and material witnesses and exhibits" and since PLANS did not put forward any evidence at the trial, "the court has no basis for making a factual finding that Anthroposophy is not a religion." The Exhibit 89, The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide, found at one of the defendant's schools, should shift the burden to the Defendants to explain that Waldorf education is not religious.

On September 28, 2005, Judge Damrell ruled that "Plaintiff failed to carry its evidentiary burden of establishing that anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment", that "Plaintiff's only proffered evidence, Exhibit 89, is inadmissible for a variety of reasons" and that "because the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion is a threshold issue ..., Plaintiff's failure to satisfy its burden of proof on the threshold issue is dispositive of this action." 

Therefore, "defendants’ motion for judgment under Rule 52(c) is GRANTED" and it is adjudged that "Plaintiff take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits and that Defendants recover their costs." 

In November, 2005, PLANS issued a notice of appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal from the final judgment of the district court. 

The PLANS appeal (March 14, 2006) claimed the Trial Court made a prejudicial error by excluding testimony from PLANS key witnesses, because the witnesses were listed as Defendants' expert witnesses and were later dropped. 

The Defendants' response (April 26, 2006) stated that PLANS had full and fair opportunity to prepare its case in accordance with federal rules and the Court's pretrial orders, but failed to disclose any expert witnesses prior to the deadline, failed to make its case at trial, and now seeks a third "bite of the apple".
 

1997

• PLANS distributes leaflets outside Oak Ridge Elementary School, a public Waldorf-methods elementary magnet school in Sacramento, suggesting that the Waldorf program is part of a "cult" involved in teaching witchcraft to the children. Instigated by PLANS, parents picket the school and claim the lessons are "like satanic, witchcraft" (The Sacramento Bee, May 16, 1997).

• A Sacramento Bee editorial states there is no evidence at the school to support PLANS' claims and deplores the tactics of PLANS as "a misinformation campaign" against a school where the parents hitherto seemed mostly satisfied with the Waldorf methods (June 10, 1997).

• On PLANS' behalf, Pacific Justice Institute files an application to the Alliance Defense Fund for a $15,000 grant to fund a lawsuit against the Sacramento City Unified School District, claiming that the Waldorf program includes "requiring children to fold their arms and chant, say a pledge to the sun flag, and other Wicca based religious practices" and rituals, which amount to "open religious proselytizing and coercion of children" in violation of the First Amendment (July 18, 1997). The grant is awarded.

1998

• PLANS files suit in Federal Court [23K] against the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) and the Twin Ridges Elementary School District (TRESD) (February 10, 1998).

• Plaintiff answers to interrogatories [603K] and Plaintiff response to request for documents [478K] (September 9, 1998).

1999

• Plaintiff answers to interrogatories (set 2) [173K] (March 4, 1999).

• The School Districts file motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case without a trial on the issues (May 1999).

• Memorandum and Order [1.3M] denies the motion for summary judgment but grants in part the School Districts' motion for summary adjudication, namely that the public school programs in both Districts using Waldorf methods have a secular (non-religious) purpose (September 24, 1999).

• Offer by the School Districts to Resolve the Waldorf Methods Litigation.

• Press Release About the Offer. Facts About Waldorf Instructional Methods (Attachment to the Press Release).

• Refusal by PLANS to Accept the Offer.

2000
 

2001

• Transcript: Daubert hearing [5.1M] to determine allowable expert witnesses and rule on motions in limine; also to decide the bifurcation of the issues: first is anthroposophy a religion, then do the school districts advance anthroposophy through their Waldorf methods (April 11, 2001).

• Memorandum and order [64K] by the Federal Court dismisses the PLANS litigation (May 23, 2001).

2002

• Appeal by PLANS against the Dismissal.

2003

• Opinion by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [44K] regarding PLANS' Appeal (February 10, 2003).

• Transcript of mid-litigation status conference [710K]: Plaintiff requests to reopen discovery. Court grants re-opening of discovery for both sides: designation of expert witnesses filed by December 19 and discovery to be completed by March 19 (September 26, 2003).

• Order by Magistrate Judge Peter Nowinski granting Defendants' motion to compel discovery which had not been forthcoming from Plaintiff; Court grants 10 days to comply; Plaintiff fails to comply by December 19 (November-December 2003).

2004

• Defendants' motion for dismissal with prejudice as sanction for failing to comply with court order compelling responses to requests to produce documents (January 6, 2004).

• Declaration of Scott M. Kendall [42K], Attorney of Record for PLANS, in opposition to motion for sanctions terminating the case. Mr. Kendall declares that he has been suffering from a relapse of a significant mental illness causing him to fail to comply with the court's order to respond to discovery requests (January 14, 2004).

• Plaintiff answers to special interrogatories [634K] and Plaintiff response to request for documents [107K] (January 15, 2004).

• Transcript of proceedings before Judge Nowinski [785K] to determine disposition of the case. Court  grants extension to resolve disputes and complete discovery by April 2 (February 4, 2004).

• Plaintiff supplemental answers to special interrogatories [1.9M] (February 23, 2004).

• Court resets deadlines: designation of expert witnesses due by April 16, discovery to be complete by April 30 (March 10, 2004).

• Findings and recommendation by Judge Nowinski that Plaintiff's action not be dismissed as sanction for failing to comply with court order (March 17, 2004).

• Plaintiff second supplemental answers to special interrogatories [367K] Part 2 [445K] (more parts to come), Plaintiff supplemental response [98K] and Plaintiff response to request for documents [246K] (March 31, 2004). 

• Plaintiff motion for summary judgment [137K] and Points and Authorities for the motion [773K]; Statement by PLANS of "undisputed facts" [114K] in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication; Statement by Jonathan Huber [2.8M], Attorney of Record for PLANS, in Support of PLANS' Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (May 28, 2004).

• Declarations in support of Defendants' opposition to motion for summary judgment: Chavez [180K], Keiner [2.2M], Eining [228K], Paquette [149K], Messier [218K], Kuchera [97K], Lawrence [275K]. Defendants' objection to evidence [960K] (July 8, 2004).

• Amicus Curiae Brief of the Anthroposophical Society in America [155K] in Support of the Defendants (July 13, 2004).

• Opposition by the two School Districts [129K] to Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (July 30, 2004).

• Declaration by Douglas Sloan [62K], Expert on Religion and Anthroposophy, in Support of the School Districts' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (July 30, 2004).

• Memorandum and Court Order [pdf 6.4M] denying PLANS' Motion for Summary Judgment (November 15, 2004) (Press Summary).

2005

• "Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement" [175K] according to the Plaintiff (January 14, 2005).

• Defendant's Final Pretrial Conference Statement. [831K] According to the statement: "Defendants attempted in good faith to file a joint statement with Plaintiff. Defendants were not able to secure Plaintiff's cooperation in a timely manner." "Defendants file this separate statement as a last resort." (January 14, 2005).

• Transcript: Final Pretrial Conference [1.1M] (January 14, 2005).

• Notice by Defendants of Motions in Limine Affected by Plaintiff's Most Recent Witness and Exhibit List [66K] (January 28, 2005).

• Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Disputed Material in Preparation for Pretrial Conference [15K] (February 11, 2005).

• Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement [132K] by the Plaintiff and the Defendants (February 11, 2005).

• Transcript: pretrial hearing [1.1M] (February 11, 2005).

• Pretrial Conference Order [705K] by the Court (February 18, 2005).

• Motions in Limine. Three motions to limit Plaintiff witnesses and exhibits are filed by the Defendants, with oppositions and replies (March 11 to March 25, 2005):

• Defendants' notice of motions in limine (18K)
• Motion in Limine Eleven (39K)
• Motion in Limine Twelve (40K)
• Motion in Limine Thirteen (37K)
• Declaration of Michelle Cannon (23K)
• SCUSD Objections to Pretrial Order (342K)
• TRESD Objections to Pretrial Order (38K)
• Amended Pretrial Order (86K)
• Opposition to Motion Eleven (257K)
• Opposition to Motion Twelve (53K)
• Opposition to Motion Thirteen (20K)
• Reply to Opposition to Motion Eleven (54K)
• Reply to Opposition to Motion Twelve (62K)
• Reply to Opposition to Motion Thirteen (76K)
• Supplemental Declaration of Michelle Cannon (21K)

• Transcript: pretrial motions [992K] (April 1, 2005).

• Court issues an order [867K] outlining the issues and the evidentiary and procedural guidelines for the trial. Eleven Plaintiff witnesses and 101 exhibits are excluded (April 20, 2005) (Press Summary).

• Trial briefs (August 29, 2005)
• Plaintiff trial brief [74K]
• SCUSD trial brief [944K]
• TRESD trial brief [142K]

• Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff Exhibits [188K] listing objections to 112 Plaintiff exhibits (September 1, 2005)

• Trial in Federal District Court closed after 30 minutes. The trial transcript (HTML) and PDF format [20 pages, 52K]. (September 12, 2005)

• PLANS announces that they will appeal the trial outcome (September 14, 2005) An analysis of the PLANS press release: "PLANS Loses Waldorf Court Case, Lies About it in Press Release" by Daniel Hindes

• See also press release by the Anthroposophical Society in America. "Despite the fact that PLANS has had more than seven years to find witnesses and produce acceptable evidence, PLANS presented neither. We were not surprised by the outcome. This totally discredits PLANS and their assertions about anthroposophy." (September 15, 2005)

• Defendants' objections to Plaintiff exhibit and motion for judgment under Rule 52(c) [988K]. Defendants' objections to The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide by Eugene Schwartz as evidence that anthroposophy is a religion, and motion for final judgment. (September 16, 2005)

• Plaintiff objections to proposed findings of fact in opposition to motion for judgment [37K]. PLANS objects to the exclusion witnesses and exhibits. (September 23, 2005)

• Order granting Defendants' motion for judgment [22K]. Judge Damrell ruling granting defendants’ motion for judgment under Rule 52(c). "Plaintiff take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits and that Defendants recover their costs." (September 28, 2005)

• Defendant school districts, SCUSD [144K] and TRESD [88K], submit an accounting of their costs totaling $22,550. (October 19, 2005)

• Plaintiff issues a notice of appeal [234K] to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal from the final judgment of the district court. (November 3, 2005)

2006

• Plaintiff appeal opening brief [482K] claims the Trial Court made a prejudicial and reversible error by excluding percipient testimony from Plaintiff key witnesses because the witnesses were listed as Defendants' expert witnesses and were later dropped by the Defendants. The witnesses at issue are Betty Staley, Robert L. Anderson and Dr. Crystal Olson (March 14, 2006).

• Defendants' appellee brief [796K] responds that after extended discovery and numerous opportunities to disclose witnesses, Plaintiff had full and fair opportunity to prepare its case in accordance with federal rules and the Court's pretrial orders, but now seeks a third "bite of the apple". Plaintiff failed to disclose any expert witnesses prior to the April 16, 2004 deadline. At trial, Plaintiff failed to make sufficient proffer how it could prove its case and, after offering only one potential piece of evidence, rested its case. (April 26, 2006).

• Plaintiff reply brief [429K] responds that the Trial Court abused its discretion by excluding percipient witnesses Staley, Anderson and Olson; no rule allows a party to shield itself from damaging percipient testimony by designating the witness as its own expert. The Court's exclusion especially of witness Betty Staley completely prejudiced PLANS' ability to present its case (May 30, 2006).

• District Court "taxes" the final amended costs (SCUSD [253K], TRESD [227K]) to Plaintiff PLANS in the amount of $7,900 (July 13, 2006).

For more, see:

• The background and nature of PLANS

• The background of the litigation

• Additional analysis of the litigation

• Appeal Court Decision: Altman vs. Bedford Central School District (March 27, 2001). The decision constituted the basis for the dismissal by the federal court of PLANS' litigation on May 23, 2001.

• Article in The Union: "Fed court dismisses Waldorf lawsuit" (May 25, 2001).

• Yuba River Charter School suit is disappointing. Letter by Parent at Yuba River Charter School to The Union (February 17, 2003).

• "Yuba River Charter School does not teach religion". Letter by Parent at Yuba River Charter School to The Union (March 28, 2003).

• "Schooled in spirituality" by Chrisanne Beckner, Sacramento News and Reviews (February 3, 2005). (Letters to the Editor on the article, February 10, February 17.)