BREMERTON — Assistant football coach Joe Kennedy and his legal representatives with Liberty Institute announced Oct. 26 their intention to file a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District for “denying his (Kennedy’s) request for religious accommodation.”

A letter sent Oct. 23 from Aaron Leavell, superintendent of the Bremerton School District, was referenced in the press release announcing Kennedy’s intention to file suit.

In that letter, Leavell said, “The district does not prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by employees while on the job. However … such exercise must not interfere with the performance of job responsibilities and must not lead to a perception of district endorsement of religion.”

Leavell references a letter sent Sept. 17 to Kennedy, in which district policy is spelled out: “school staff may not indirectly encourage students to engage in religious activity (or discourage them from doing so), or even engage in action that is likely to be perceived as endorsing (or opposing) religion or religious activity.”

Leavell further stated out in his Oct. 23 letter that assistant coaches have work-related responsibilities not only before and during games, but also immediately following games. Leavell wrote that the coaches are “expected to remain with the team until the last student has left the event,” which Leavell said Kennedy has done in the past, and therefore is aware of the policy.

“When you engaged in religious exercise immediately following the game on Oct. 16, you were still on duty for the district,” Leavell wrote to Kennedy. “You were at the event, and on the field, under the game lights, in Bremerton High School-logoed attire, in front of an audience of event attendees, solely by virtue of your employment by the district.

“The field is not an open forum to which members of the public are invited following completion of the games; but even if it were, you continued to have job responsibilities, including the supervision of players.

“While I understand that your religious exercise was fleeting, it nevertheless drew you away from your work. More importantly, any reasonable observer saw a district employee, on the field only by virtue of his employment with the district, still on duty, under the bright lights of the stadium, engaged in what was clearly, given your prior public conduct, overtly religious conduct.”

Leavell wrote that case law “not only allows, but requires” school districts to prohibit employees from publicly endorsing, encouraging or discouraging any one religion.

“In addition, Washington courts have held that Article IX Section 4 of the Washington Constitution, which provides that public schools ‘shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence,’ imposes an even more strict prohibition on public agency endorsement of religion,” Leavell wrote.

In response to that, Liberty Institute lawyer Mike Berry said, “He’s incorrect on the law.”

Berry also stated that the school district refused Kennedy’s request for religious accommodation, meaning they will not allow him to pray on the 50-yard line after football games.

“Not only did they reject that request, but … they went even further and said that their policy was that the school district was not going to allow any visible (religious expression), which could conceivably mean that Jewish employees couldn’t wear Yamakas, and Islamic employees could not wear hijabs.”

In Leavell’s letter to Kennedy, he said the district would be willing to work with Kennedy to provide him “a private location” for him to pray, so long as it was unobservable to students and the public, and did not interfere with his job responsibilities.

“For example,” Leavell wrote, “a private location within the school building, athletic facility or press box could be made available to you for brief religious exercise before and after games, if this will not interfere with your assigned duties.”

Berry said that the offer to find a private location for Kennedy to pray after the game was “not an accommodation.”

“That’s the equivalent of telling him that he has to hide,” Berry said. “When it comes to religious freedom in the country, that’s never been the law, that you can have religious expression, but you have to hide it somewhere.

“That’s really what we’re asking for, that they’re willing to allow him to do this on the 50-yard line after the game is over … For them to tell him, you can do this, but you have to hide it somewhere, is not only inappropriate, but unconstitutional.”

Berry said that there are a lot of steps to filing a law suit, and the announcement on Oct. 26 to file was just the first one. He said the next step is to “initiate the legal proceedings to defend Coach Kennedy’s religious freedom.”

“It’s unfortunate that we have to do that, but we’ve given the school district plenty of opportunities (to work it out without involving the court),” Berry said. “They seem unwilling to talk with us. I would hope that they would take the opportunity now, before it’s too late.”

Berry added, “We are more than happy to meet with them to resolve this,” and that all they’re asking for is for Kennedy to be allowed “a private, personal prayer on the 50-yard line after the games are over.”

“Which really has nothing to do with the students,” Berry said. “If the students choose to walk out there and stand next to them, that’s their choice, and I would certainly hope the school district would not try to take away their right to do that.”

Patter Glaser, public relations person for the Bremerton School District, responded to a voicemail in an email saying, “We have no new statements, (nor) have we received any notice about a lawsuit.”