Former Enloe Teacher Sues Wake School Board

Raleigh, N.C. — A former Enloe High School teacher at the center of a controversy over an anti-Muslim speaker filed a lawsuit against the Wake County school board Friday, his spokesperson said.

In February, Robert Escamilla was suspended with pay after he invited Kamil Solomon, head of Kamil International Ministries, to his class. Solomon handed out pamphlets entitled, "Why Women Should Not Marry Muslims."

The school board said Escamilla knew Solomon's guest-speaking engagement would denigrate Islam and was not acceptable. Escamilla was later reassigned to Mary E. Phillips High School, an alternative school.

On Oct. 17, school board members released part of Escamilla's personnel record, because members said they felt they needed to protect their integrity. The records both praised and criticized his teaching ability.

Escamilla, who taught at Enloe for 18 years, also fought to get a 12-page reprimand removed from his employment file, but the school board denied the request.

In his lawsuit, Escamilla claims the school board violated his constitutional rights when they disciplined him, and he wants his transfer to the alternative school rescinded.

77 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 77 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

"Injecting religion into government is a poison that will eventually kill both."-elcid89

Like what's happening at this very moment? To deny that there is some percentage of "us against them" sentiment between our Conservative Christian Administration and Muslims in the current middle east conflicts, including Iraq, would be willfully ignorant.

WRALblows
November 19, 2007 7:47 p.m.

"I'll look for a couple of examples of states ruling on constitutionality and get those for you. Believe it was before 1803. Going to bed now though."

Of course it was before 1803. Marbury stopped that trend in its tracks, as it was indirectly intended to do. That doctrine of judicial review has stood for over 200 years. Certainly you don't mean to dismantle it as well.

elcid89
November 19, 2007 12:44 a.m.

"Read Church of Holy Trinity v. US 1892 which SCOTUS in it's majority opinion said that "US was Chirstian."

Somewhat curious case to be citing, as Brewer's language in this case regarding religion can almost certainly be viewed as obiter dicta. It deal solely with immigration law and established no perquisites for religion in having used it to extemporaneously validate its conclusions. Interestingly, the common consensus regarding this case is that it serves to characterize religious institutions as outside of the review of governmental policy, thereby preserving the doctrine of separation admirably.

Certainly you didn't mean to do that.

elcid89
November 19, 2007 12:42 a.m.

"I was originally referring to Everson V SBoE in 1947. Chief justice and several other judges were also virulently anti-catholic based on comments and letters they wrote(like the Jefferson letter maybe?)."

Yet in Zorach v. Clauson, the same court upheld the constitutionality of releasing students from public school in order that they might attend religious education with the systems acting in concert to assure compliance with compulsory attendance. The majority of the institutions affected in that ruling were Catholic. The difference was in the lack of public support, through either facilities or funding, that characterized the scenarios in both Everson and McCollum. It's somewhat narrow to attribute the rulings to anti-Catholic sentiment when subsequent rulings arguably supported Catholicism. It's especially telling that the lone Catholic justice serving on the court at that time, Murphy, joined the majority opinions in both Everson and McCollum.

elcid89
November 19, 2007 12:31 a.m.

It goes back before the ratification of the constitution actually. Creating a day of thanksgiving in 1777 for the war the then congress dedicated it to Jesus Christ.

I was originally referring to Everson V SBoE in 1947. Chief justice and several other judges were also virulently anti-catholic based on comments and letters they wrote(like the Jefferson letter maybe?).

Read Church of Holy Trinity v. US 1892 which SCOTUS in it's majority opinion said that "US was Chirstian."

I'll look for a couple of examples of states ruling on constitutionality and get those for you. Believe it was before 1803. Going to bed now though.

lizard
November 18, 2007 11:15 p.m.