Chris Comer sues Texas Education Agency

[MattusMaximus]

Howdy all,

There is a very interesting new development in the fiasco of the firing of Chris Comer, the former Director of Science at the Texas Education Agency for her lack of "neutrality" over ID-creationism.

The other shoe has dropped, and she has sued the TEA. Read more about it here...

Science Supervisor Chris Comer Sues Texas Education Agency

I find it interesting that the ID-creationist movement takes so much time, via efforts such as the movie flop Expelled, to paint this picture of discrimination against Christians and theists in academia, but when push comes to shove they never actually try filing any lawsuits or pursue things in court.

I wonder why not? Perhaps because outside of court they can sling any and all manner of innuendo without providing evidence, but once in court (where evidence rules) their arguments don't hold any water?

As I mentioned, traditionally creationists have done very poorly in the courts where the standard of evidence is much higher than in the area of public opinion. And what with a lawsuit against them for discrimination (the very charge they trump up and level so often at the pro-science side), it's going to be very interesting to see how this pans out.

Does anyone know any more details on this situation?

ETA: There is a great YouTube video from the NCSE on this topic. Check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQacQy1KJ9M

 

[gdnp]

Let's just hope no one sees Comer around the office. They may suspect him of stealing office supplies and shoot him in the back. This is Texas, after all

 

[MattusMaximus]

Let's just hope no one sees Comer around the office. They may suspect him of stealing office supplies and shoot him in the back. This is Texas, after all

Her. Chris Comer is female.

 

[gdnp]

Her. Chris Comer is female.

 

[Slimething]

She's got a tough row to hoe, if link is accurate. Firings don't have to be constitutional. The employer only has to prove you weren't doing your job properly. This is very prejudicial toward the employer, especially in TX where the circuit court is very "conservative'.

Anyway, much luck to her. PM me if there is anything I can do on her behalf.

 

[Bob Klase]

Firings don't have to be constitutional.

Firings have to constitutional if the government is the one doing the firing.

 

[Slimething]

Firings have to constitutional if the government is the one doing the firing.

Only if it's agains the TX state consitution, which I doubt it is. Most consitutions don't get to the fine detail of how to fire a state employee. I could be wrong and be glad of it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

She's got a tough row to hoe, if link is accurate. Firings don't have to be constitutional. The employer only has to prove you weren't doing your job properly. This is very prejudicial toward the employer, especially in TX where the circuit court is very "conservative'.

Anyway, much luck to her. PM me if there is anything I can do on her behalf.

The suit is being filed in federal court, not in a Texas court.

 

[Slimething]

The suit is being filed in federal court, not in a Texas court.

Yes, but her challenge must demonstrate that it is either illegal by Federal statute or TX statute. Firing someone isn't usually a constitutional issue. Normally, the firing is challenged against a narrower law.

I hope she's got competent legal counsel. All she can expect is an offer of a cash settlement. This issue probably won't result in a ground-breaking decision, although I wish it would.

Been there. We have a very good TX attorney as a member here. Hopefully he'll find this thread.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Good for her and I hope she wins, though, unfortunately, this nonsense won't end until McLeroy loses his chairmanship or is voted off the schoolboard.

Let's just hope no one sees Comer around the office. They may suspect him of stealing office supplies and shoot him in the back. This is Texas, after all

As opposed to New Jersey were they'd dump her in the river wearing concrete overshoes?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Good for her and I hope she wins, though, unfortunately, this nonsense won't end until McLeroy loses his chairmanship or is voted off the schoolboard.

I think this is going to be a huge stink, especially since it's going to federal court. It'll be another Dover for the creationists, and a whole bunch of dirt is going to be dug up in the process. We'll see...

As opposed to New Jersey were they'd dump her in the river wearing concrete overshoes?

Nah, that's the Chicago way!

 

[INRM]

My honest opinion about these creationist / intelligent design types basically follows along this theme...

These people are motivated by fear first and foremost; they believe their beliefs are being attacked from every which direction. As a result they seek to incorporate their ideology into the political process to legislate mandatory compliance with their beliefs.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think this is going to be a huge stink, especially since it's going to federal court. It'll be another Dover for the creationists, and a whole bunch of dirt is going to be dug up in the process. We'll see...

It's already starting to buzz on the Internet. And this Austin American Stateman article one of her lawyers is John Oberdorfer. A Google search shows he works for Patton Boggs. I think she's in good hands. They defended Metabolife? Oh boy...

Nah, that's the Chicago way!

I thought that body of water near Chicago was referred to as "Lake" Michigan.

 

[Bob Klase]

Only if it's agains the TX state consitution, which I doubt it is. Most consitutions don't get to the fine detail of how to fire a state employee. I could be wrong and be glad of it.

You are wrong. The school is a government agency. The US constitution applies to all government agencies. Just imagine, if schools only had to worry about their state constitution then Arkansas and Kansas would have been teaching creationism for the last 20 years. And when it came to violating our rights, if the constitution prevented the federal government from doing something all they'd have to do is ask the state to do it for them.

 

[Bob Klase]

Yes, but her challenge must demonstrate that it is either illegal by Federal statute or TX statute. Firing someone isn't usually a constitutional issue. Normally, the firing is challenged against a narrower law.

We're talking about a specific case so it makes no difference what's 'normally' done. Just stating that something is 'normally' done indicates that you're aware that sometimes things are done other than 'normally'.

The reason firing someone is normally done by statue is that normally people are fired for reasons that don't violate the constitution.

Are you saying there's a federal statue that says you can't teach religion in schools? You may be right, but as far as I know the lawsuits didn't claim any specific statue was violated in the Dover trial- their claim was that the first amendment was violated.

Been there. We have a very good TX attorney as a member here. Hopefully he'll find this thread.

I hope so.

 

[Slimething]

The school is a government agency. The US constitution applies to all government agencies.

The school is a TX state agency, not a federal agency. However, issues of job discrimination are heard by federal courts, not state courts. There are two issues here and you are not thinking about one of them. Two different claims seem to be made:
1. The state acted without sufficient cause and fired the employee in a manner that would not apply to any other employee.
2. The state's policy is tacitly in violation of the US Constitution.

Claim 1 is by far the easier to win on and does not invoke a constitutional issue. My guess is that the state will offer a settlement that she was indeed fired without due consideration and she will or will not accept that offer.

Claim 2, the one you're thinking about, is a much tougner claim that would drag on for years. I wouldn't bet on this one emerging as the dominant point of contention. Comer is not beholden to any of us to fight this fight at the expense of rejecting a good offer to settle on Claim 1. If, for example, a group such as the ACLU wanted to sue TX solely on Claim 2 using Comer as an example, yes, you'd get a reading on the broader consitutional issue but my guess is that it won't get that far.

We're talking about a specific case so it makes no difference what's 'normally' done.

If TX treats every employee like Comer was treated, she has no effective argument per Claim 1. I doubt that TX could build any type of education system if they did so. Therefore, she has a good argument that her case is exceptional. What is normally done has everything to do with at least one claim in this case.

The reason firing someone is normally done by statue is that normally people are fired for reasons that don't violate the constitution.

Constitutions don't normally get into the minutiae of employment law. I know the US Constitution doesn't but I haven't read the TX Constitution. This is part of Claim 2 and you would have to prove that the intent of the firing was to suppress one of Comer's rights under either constitution. That's tough to do.

Are you saying there's a federal statue that says you can't teach religion in schools? You may be right, but as far as I know the lawsuits didn't claim any specific statue was violated in the Dover trial- their claim was that the first amendment was violated.

The First Amendment covers religious activity by the government fairly well. A publicly-funded institution can teach religion as long as it is not pushing it. For example, courses on comparative religion are perfectly acceptable as long as no one religion is favored over the others. Public universities have Theology departments. The SCOTUS has established the Lemon Test to differentiate what constitutes an establishment of religion by the government.

We'll see what unfolds in this case but I sincerely doubt that we'll get a ruling on the broader constitutional issue here. I don't think it will go that far unless TX litigates this unwisely. Let's see just how stupid they really are.

 

[Bob Klase]

She's got a tough row to hoe, if link is accurate. Firings don't have to be constitutional.

I said that firings do have to be constitutional. Everything done by the government has to be constitutional. Nothing you've written changes that.

Only if it's agains the TX state consitution, which I doubt it is. Most consitutions don't get to the fine detail of how to fire a state employee. I could be wrong and be glad of it.

You're still wrong on that one. The fact that the suit was filed in federal court is evidence that this has nothing to do with the TX state constitution. State constitutional issues are rarely heard in federal court (unless the issue also involves the US Constitution).

Yes, but her challenge must demonstrate that it is either illegal by Federal statute or TX statute.

I've asked you for the federal or state statute that would apply here. There's none listed in the court filing. Apparently even the lawyers involved are dumb enough to disagree with you on that point.

The school is a TX state agency, not a federal agency.

The US Constitution applies to all levels of government. You should be able to figure that out just by the fact that this suit is filed in federal court.

However, issues of job discrimination are heard by federal courts, not state courts.

And where has this suit been filed? Apparently you don't know it's filed in the United States District Court.

There are two issues here and you are not thinking about one of them.

Well, let's see what the actual court filing says:

Count One- Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Count Two- Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Count Three- Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Well, looks like there's three issues here and you're not thinking correctly about any of them. Once again, no state or federal statues noted, just violations of the US Constitution.

No claim about sufficient cause- only claims about violations of the constitutional rights.

Really no claims about state policy, just claims that the state is violating the US Constitution.

Claim 1 is by far the easier to win on and does not invoke a constitutional issue.

Guess they should hire you to represent them since their stupid lawyers are basing everything on constitutional issues.

My guess is that the state will offer a settlement that she was indeed fired without due consideration and she will or will not accept that offer.

My guess is that such a settlement would be rejected out of hand because they're not complaining that she was fired without due consideration. You really should read the complaint (or at least get some facts) before making so many irrelevant claims.

Claim 2, the one you're thinking about, is a much tougner claim that would drag on for years. I wouldn't bet on this one emerging as the dominant point of contention.

Once again- read the complaint. The whole case is about constitutional issues.

Comer is not beholden to any of us to fight this fight at the expense of rejecting a good offer to settle on Claim 1.

Once again- read the complaint. Whether Comer is beholden or not is irrelevant. The case has been filed, no settlement has been offered and you continue to waste time writing about things that exist only in your head.

If, for example, a group such as the ACLU wanted to sue TX solely on Claim 2 using Comer as an example, yes, you'd get a reading on the broader consitutional issue but my guess is that it won't get that far.

Once again, read the complaint. Cases for violations of constitutional rights do not require the ACLU, they do not require class action. You're really just making things up here.

If TX treats every employee like Comer was treated, she has no effective argument per Claim 1.

Since claim 1 exists nowhere but in your head, so what?

What is normally done has everything to do with at least one claim in this case.

Which claim is that? The one that you made up that doesn't really exist in the papers filed in the suit?

Constitutions don't normally get into the minutiae of employment law.

No, constitutions normally get involved in general rights. Sometimes those rights are also codified into statues. And courts often get involved in the minutiae of employment law to determine if said minutiae is in violation of the constitution (federal or state).

You can spend all week making claims about what normally happens. I'm really only talking about this particular case.

I know the US Constitution doesn't but I haven't read the TX Constitution. This is part of Claim 2 and you would have to prove that the intent of the firing was to suppress one of Comer's rights under either constitution. That's tough to do.

Guess Comer should go on back home and cry because it might be tough to do. (Or course claims 1 and 2 are only your claims and have little to do with the actually claims being made in this case.)

The First Amendment covers religious activity by the government fairly well.

Yes. That's why we never have to spend money on trials over what can be taught in public schools. It's pretty well covered by the first amendment.

A publicly-funded institution can teach religion as long as it is not pushing it.

And yet there was a big long trial over intelligent design in Dover, PA just a couple years ago. What was that all about? Then there were a couple other cases where there seemed to be some disagreement on what was "pushing it". The Scopes trial, the Arkansas' Creationism trial in 1981, a few other well know trials. Yep- there's never been any disagreement about what would be "pushing it".

For example, courses on comparative religion are perfectly acceptable as long as no one religion is favored over the others. Public universities have Theology departments. The SCOTUS has established the Lemon Test to differentiate what constitutes an establishment of religion by the government.

You do realize that the Lemon Test was set out by SCOTUS in a another trial (Lemon v. Kurtzman). What was that all about? You just said the first amendment was pretty clear and yet they keep having these big trials over it.

We'll see what unfolds in this case but I sincerely doubt that we'll get a ruling on the broader constitutional issue here.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I don't think it will go that far unless TX litigates this unwisely. Let's see just how stupid they really are.

If you ever get tired of just making things up you could get some facts first. Maybe you could start here:

http://www.ncseweb.org/pdf/ComerComplaint.pdf

 

[Slimething]

You're still wrong on that one. The fact that the suit was filed in federal court is evidence that this has nothing to do with the TX state constitution. State constitutional issues are rarely heard in federal court (unless the issue also involves the US Constitution).

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I said that US Courts hear employment cases. Yes, yes, I did say that. Will ya looka there! Devil's in the details, huh?

Just in case you're starting to get the idea that you're getting on my nerves with your attitude, you'd be right there, me bucko.

I've asked you for the federal or state statute that would apply here. There's none listed in the court filing. Apparently even the lawyers involved are dumb enough to disagree with you on that point.

And I replied that the First Amendment suits that, didn't I? You'd rather have a law than a Constitutional Amendment to rely on here? Well, OK. Suit yourself.

The US Constitution applies to all levels of government. You should be able to figure that out just by the fact that this suit is filed in federal court.

In your mind, only constitutional challenges are filed in Federal court? Well, OK. New one on me.

And where has this suit been filed? Apparently you don't know it's filed in the United States District Court.

You ever get tired of that line? Read up on the jurisdictions of Federal courts, why dontcha?

Well, let's see what the actual court filing says:

Well, lookee, you finally posted something factual. Reading it, I see that Comer resigned. So she doesn't have a discrimination claim. That was unwise. I'm sorry I failed you so! You're right, the complaint is strictly on breach of rights here.

No claim about sufficient cause- only claims about violations of the constitutional rights.

Really no claims about state policy, just claims that the state is violating the US Constitution.

I stopped counting at seven individual federal and state statutes cited in the complaint. See if you can find them too. Yes, you too can do this at home.

My guess is that such a settlement would be rejected out of hand because they're not complaining that she was fired without due consideration. You really should read the complaint (or at least get some facts) before making so many irrelevant claims.

A settlement can be offered by either party at any time for any reason. Acceptance of said offer usually involves a non-disclosure clause such that no one would ever find out the terms of said settlement. Really, boy, try living in reality. Only about 1% of all lawsuits filed in Federal court are actually heard. Many die at the stage of summary judgement after discovery. Just how much to do you know about law? Anything?

Once again- read the complaint. Whether Comer is beholden or not is irrelevant. The case has been filed, no settlement has been offered and you continue to waste time writing about things that exist only in your head.

I was offering some possible outcomes that would preclude a decision on the constitutional aspects of the lawsuit. Sorry if that offended you. Actually, not really. I'm ecstatic that it offended you. If you could only read my mind concerning exactly what type of person you are, you'd never forgive me. I could live with that. I really could.

Once again, read the complaint. Cases for violations of constitutional rights do not require the ACLU, they do not require class action. You're really just making things up here.

The ACLU takes only class-action cases? Well, waddayaknow. Kitzmiller was a class action suit? Don't think so!

Since claim 1 exists nowhere but in your head, so what?

Like I said, I made an assumption. She wasn't fired, as I thought she was. Therefore, there can be no claim of discrimination. Happy?

Guess Comer should go on back home and cry because it might be tough to do.

Have you ever participated in anything like this, bobo? It's not easy. I feel badly for Comer. This is going to be hell for her. You should respect someone who has the gumption to do this kind of stuff.

Yes. That's why we never have to spend money on trials over what can be taught in public schools. It's pretty well covered by the first amendment.
And yet there was a big long trial over intelligent design in Dover, PA just a couple years ago. What was that all about? Then there were a couple other cases where there seemed to be some disagreement on what was "pushing it". The Scopes trial, the Arkansas' Creationism trial in 1981, a few other well know trials. Yep- there's never been any disagreement about what would be "pushing it".

Do you always act this way? The First Amendment prohibits establishment of religion by the government. It doesn't prohibit discussion, teaching, etc as long as governmental activity does not establish religion. That's what the Lemon Test is all about. It was used in Kitzmiller. For Ed's sake, learn something before you spout off.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I like to feel I do. What's your excuse?


Boy-boy, I made a bad assumption. Sue me. (Get it?)

I really don't like discussing serious issues with people who act like jerks. Even if I was wrong, your demeanor takes all the fun out of discussions like this. Grow up. Try to make some friends. Figure out that you don't know everything (especially about this stuff). I have a lawyer friend whom I commiserate with because it seems anyone who every watched TV thinks they can do law. I'm no lawyer but I know you are dead wrong in most of your beliefs. Been there. You haven't.

Consider yourself ignored.

 

[Bob Klase]

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Well, let's see what you did say:

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
Firings have to constitutional if the government is the one doing the firing.

Only if it's agains the TX state consitution, which I doubt it is.

Well lookee there. You're wrong again. That's exactly what you said. It really should have been obvious that you said it since I quoted your own words. It must be tough to look at a quote from your own post and write "Did I say that? No, I didn't".

The devil may be in the details, but a direct quote of what you wrote seems to be one of those annoying details.

Just in case you're starting to get the idea that you're getting on my nerves with your attitude, you'd be right there, me bucko.

Just in case you're starting to get the idea that I care about your nerves, you'd be wrong there bucko.

And I replied that the First Amendment suits that, didn't I? You'd rather have a law than a Constitutional Amendment to rely on here? Well, OK. Suit yourself.

You said:

Yes, but her challenge must demonstrate that it is either illegal by Federal statute or TX statute.

I disagreed that it required a specific federal statute or TX statute. I'm not the one that made the claim about statues being required. I was perfectly clear that the constitution (including amendments- which are part of the constitution) are just fine to use as a basis for lawsuits. You claimed otherwise. Now you change your mind and decide that the first amendment is fine and somehow that makes your original claim correct? Good thinking bucko.

In your mind, only constitutional challenges are filed in Federal court? Well, OK. New one on me.

Did I say that "only constitutional challenges are filed in Federal court". No, I didn't. And that's clearly not what I said- but really, I don't expect accuracy from you anymore.

You ever get tired of that line? Read up on the jurisdictions of Federal courts, why dontcha?

I don't really get tired of that line when it applies. And it certainly applies to your claims.

Well, lookee, you finally posted something factual. Reading it, I see that Comer resigned.

Well, lookee- you finally read something that actually gives you some facts about the case in question.

I stopped counting at seven individual federal and state statutes cited in the complaint.

Statues are given showing jurisdiction and venue. Statues are referenced for various purposes (including one LA statute that required public schools to teach creationism). I don't see any statues referenced as the basis for the lawsuit.

See if you can find them too. Yes, you too can do this at home.

Feel free to just make something up. You're getting quite good at that.

A settlement can be offered by either party at any time for any reason.

Did I say something that indicated otherwise? (Correct answer is 'No', I didn't).

Acceptance of said offer usually involves a non-disclosure clause such that no one would ever find out the terms of said settlement.

Many settlements have no such clause. And it's still irrelevant since no settlement has been offered.

Only about 1% of all lawsuits filed in Federal court are actually heard. Many die at the stage of summary judgement after discovery.

Once again a big 'so what'? We're talking about one specific case.

Just how much to do you know about law? Anything?

Well, 'anything' would be significantly more than you know.

I was offering some possible outcomes that would preclude a decision on the constitutional aspects of the lawsuit.

That would be fine. Perhaps it wouldn't look so bad if you hadn't jumped to so many possible outcomes in lieu of actually addressing the totally wrong claims you made before doing that.

If you could only read my mind concerning exactly what type of person you are, you'd never forgive me.

Your opinion of the type of person I am is overwhelmingly important to me. It ranks right up there with worrying what Barak Obama had for breakfast 12 years ago today. It's almost taking time away from my worrying about what color socks I'll wear next year on Jul 4th.

The ACLU takes only class-action cases? Well, waddayaknow. Kitzmiller was a class action suit? Don't think so!

Oops. Did I say that the ACLU only takes class-action cases. I'm sorry... wait a second:

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
Cases for violations of constitutional rights do not require the ACLU, they do not require class action

Well, lookee there- that's not at all what I said again. You must be looking for a perfect record because you're wrong again. Maybe if I break it down into shorter sentences you'll understand it:

Cases for violations of constitutional rights do not require the ACLU. Cases for violations of constitutional rights do not require class action.

See how that works? The comma separates two things which could also be separated by a period but can be compressed into a shorter sentence with the same meaning by using a comma. And nothing at all about the ACLU only taking class action cases. You're still just making things up.

Like I said, I made an assumption. She wasn't fired, as I thought she was. Therefore, there can be no claim of discrimination. Happy?

I'm never happy to see someone be wrong as consistently as you've been.

Have you ever participated in anything like this, bobo? It's not easy. I feel badly for Comer. This is going to be hell for her. You should respect someone who has the gumption to do this kind of stuff.

So what are you trying to say? We shouldn't discuss things here if someone (who may or may not ever read anything here) is having a hard time?

Or are you trying to claim that I've written something that doesn't respect Comer?

Or are you just throwing out non sequitors?

Do you always act this way? The First Amendment prohibits establishment of religion by the government. It doesn't prohibit discussion, teaching, etc as long as governmental activity does not establish religion.

My point (which not surprisingly you either missed or just decided to ignore) is that the first amendment is not as crystal clear as you want to pretend it is. If it was that clear there would have been no need for Kitzmiller, Scopes, etc.

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I like to feel I do.

So the answer is that you really don't know what you're talking about. Well, no need for you to actually give that answer- it was already obvious.

I really don't like discussing serious issues with people who act like jerks.

It's a free country. I really don't like discussing serious issues with people are totally ignorant of the facts, who make stupid claims and then start spreading massive generalizations and irrelevant claims hoping no one will notice how ignorant they were in their first claims.

Grow up. Try to make some friends. Figure out that you don't know everything (especially about this stuff).

I certainly never claimed to know everything. I certainly know more than you.

I have a lawyer friend whom I commiserate with because it seems anyone who every watched TV thinks they can do law. I'm no lawyer

I'd have never guessed.

but I know you are dead wrong in most of your beliefs.

This thread shows otherwise.

Been there. You haven't.

And you know that because....? Oh, I get it- you're still just pretending to know what you're talking about.

Consider yourself ignored.

Gladly. Ignorance seems to be a state you're very comfortable with.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The ACLU takes only class-action cases? Well, waddayaknow. Kitzmiller was a class action suit? Don't think so!

This is just a nit pick since it technically wasn't a class action suit, but it was on behalf of multiple plaintiffs.