State ot Wisconsin \

D E P A R T M ENT

OF INDUSTRY, LABOR and HUMAN RELATIONS

MILWAUKEE STATE OFFICE BUILDING
B I B H. 6TH ST.
MILWAUKEE 3 3 2 0 3

PLEASE REPLY TO:

lohn I Phman

ERD Caae

EQUAL RIGHTS DIVISION #7605700 EEOC TMK J61939

jnrj 11 1379

Complainant,
vs

Racine Unified School District #1 Board of Education of Racine Unified School District #1 2230 Northwestern Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53404
Respondent.

Our representative has completed an investigation of the above case and has concluded there is no probable^cause to believe that an act of discrimination, within the meaning of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Law, Wis. Stats., ss 111.31 to 111.37, has been committed. A copy of the Initial Determination is enclosed. When an INITIAL DETERMINATION of NO PROBABLE CAUSE is issued, the Complainant may file an appeal with the Department, within 30 days from the date of this letter, requesting a hearing. That request must be in writing and state specifically the grounds upon which it is based. Such a request should be forwarded to the Equal Rights Division, 819 North Sixth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53203. If no request is filed, the Complainant shall be deemed to have waived the right to hearing, and the Initial Determination shall be deemed the decision of the Department. The Department will then automatically close this case without further notice to the parties.

Very truly yours, Robert M. Huppertz Regional Director

du Enc.

w f

cc: Complainant Respondent Ms, Priscilia Ruth MacDougall, Staff Counsel DILHl-iiD-439 8
2/75

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS EQUAL RIGHTS DIVISION

John Lehman

Complainant
vs. INITIAL DETERMINATION

ERD Case #7605700 Racine Unified School District #1 EEOC #61939 Board of Education of Racine Unified School District #1 2230 Northwestern Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53404 Respondent

I. tJhe Charge: - - -' " "

In a COMPLAINT filed on May 24, 1976 with the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, the Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against by the Respondent because of creed/Lutheran Protestant Christian in regard to rehire in violation of Sections 111.31-111.37 of the Wisconsin Statutes. II. Position of the Complainant: The Complainant said his charge of religious discrimination is based upon the Respondent's failure to rehire him for a teaching position following the events stemming from his attempt to obtain conscientious objection status, and his refusal to submit to induction into military service. ,-fIII. Position of the Respondent: The Respondent denies discriminating against the Complainant. IV. Issues: 1. Was the Complainant not rehired due to his creed? V. Persons Interviewed: 1. John Lehman, Complainant.

-2-

2. W. Thatcher Peterson, Coordinator of Employee Services, Unified School District #1, Office of Superintendent, 2230 Northwestern Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin, 53404. 3. Priscilia Ruth MacDougall, Staff Counsel, Wisconsin Education Association Council, 101 West Beltline Hwy, P.O. Box 8003, Madison, Wisconsin, 53708. 4. -Jim Ennis, Executive Director, Local REA, (1-414) 632-6181. 5. Bob Abies, President, Local REA, (1-414) 632-6181. VI. Exhibits: 1. Investigator's Log. 2. Correspondence from W. Thatcher Peterson, June 21, 1976. 3. Correspondence from Wayne Schwartzman, July 22,^1976. 4. Correspondence from Complainant. 5. Mrs. Finney's letter to Complainant, July 18, 1977. 6. Mrs. Listenbee's letter to Complainant, December 23, 1977. 7. Correspondence from Equal Rights Division to Complainant, August 25, 1978. 8. Mrs. Listenbee's letter to Complainant, November 9, 1978. 9. Mrs. Listenbee's letters to Complainant, September 29, 1978 and November 10, 1978. 10. Mrs. Listenbee's letter to Complainant, November 24, 1978. 11. -Copy of Dismissal notice, January 3, 1979. 12. Correspondence from Priscilia Ruth MacDougall, January 11, 1979. 13. Correspondence from Priscilia Ruth MacDougall, March 22, 1979. 14. Mr. Johnny Kimble's letter to Complainant, April 4, 1979. VII. Investigator's Findings: The Respondent denies the allegation of creed discrimination. It is now initially determined that: 1. The Respondent, Racine Unified School District #1, is an employer within the meaning of Sections 111.31-111.37 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

* *

-3-

2. The Complainant taught as a history instructor for the Respondent from January 1971 to August 1972. 3. In December 1967 the Complainant applied for Conscientious Objector status based upon his religious belief's and opposition to participation in the Vietnam war. The Complainant's application was denied and he was ordered to report for induction on August 5, 1968. Complainant refused and was sentenced on July 1, 1971 for two years. The Complainant was confined for three months and the remainder of his time was spent doing hospital work. On August 5, 1974, the Complainant was granted an early discharge and on July 10, 1975, President Ford granted him a" full pardon. 4. The Complainant said he has continuously applied for a teaching position with the Respondent since 1973 and has been refused employment. 5. The Complainant stated that his creed is Lutheran Protestant Christian. 6. The Equal Rights Officer asked upon what basis the Complainant was alleging that it was because of his creed that he was denied the job. 7. According to the Complainant, Rev. Stanton, a former school board member, opposed the Respondent's decision not to rehire him, the reason for the decision being ttie controversy surrounding his refusal to submit induction because of his religious creed. The Complainant said his charge of religious discrimination is based upon the Respondent's failure to rehire him fdr a teaching position following the events stemming from his attempt to obtain conscientious objection status, and his refusal to submit to induction into military service. 8. Complainant said the Respondent was made aware of his creed through the publicity his conscientious objection case received in articles published in the Milwaukee Journal and a school board meeting in August 1971 where matters were discussed relating to the consequences of his refusal to report for induction. 9. The Complainant said there were openings when he applied for a teaching position in 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. 10. The Equal Rights Officer finds that the Equal Rights Division has no jurisdiction over the Complainant's charge since it appears he refused to report for induction in 1968 due to his pol.itical beliefs and not primarily because of his religious beliefs. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act defines creed as a system of religious beliefs and , not a system of political philosophy or beliefs. CONCLUSION There is no probable cause to believe the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant because of creed in violation of Wisconsin Statutes 111.31-111.37.

-4. "

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Dorothy Listenbee Equal Rights Officer DLrdu
cc: Complainant Respondent Ms. Priscilia Ruth MacDougall, Staff Counsel

JUJ1 -1L 1979

I*KONNAK, CONSTANTIKE & KROHN

L A. VV^ Y E JR S

STREET

'

fS*F AU Q 1 1 1972
AREA CODE *l-t TELEPHONE 634-7136

HAROLD A. KONNAK CHARLES M.CONSTANTINE THOMAS C. KROHN

RACINE , WISCONSIN

534O3

August 9, 1972

Mr. Thatcher Peterson Unified School District No. 1 2230 Northwestern Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53404 Re: John Warren Lehman

Dear Mr. Peterson:

I enclose a copy of the decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on August 7, 1972, in the case of John Warren Lehman.

Very truly yours,

,C
Charles M. Constantine CMC:mgv Enclosure cc: Mr. John W. Lehman

tfje

IniteSi l^tatetf Ccstirt of i

tfje g>ebentf) Circuit
SEPTEMBER TEEM, 1971- APRIL SESSION, 1972 A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 70-CB-122 MYBON L. GORDON, Judge.

No. 71-1712 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JOHN WABBEN Defendant-Appellant.

ARGUED APRIL 4, 1972 DECIDED AUGUST 7, 1972 . Before CUMMIKGS and STEVEKS, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL*, District Judge. PER CURIAM. After. a trial to the court, appellant -was convicted of refusing to submit to induction in violation of 50 U.S.C..APP. 462. His appeal challenges the district court's conclusion that his conscientious objection to participation in war was selective rather than all-inclusive. We have decided that the 'conviction, must bo affirmed.. Appellant contends (1) that the record should be viewed liberally in his favor in determining whether there is a 'basis in fact for the denial of a I-O classification; (2) that he was conscientiously opposed to war "in any form".;
Senior District'Judge William J. Campbell of the Northern District of Illinois is sitting by designation.

71-1712

and (3) that his I-A classification is invalid because his local board failed to state any reason for denial of a 1-0 .classification. Appellant's first argument draws support from two sources. First, the record unambignousjy demonstrates the sincerity and integrity of appellant. 'The government does not question his conscientious objection to the war in Vietnam, the sincere and religious basis for his beliefs, or indeed, any of his factual averments either in testimony or in his brief on appeal. There is indeed a strong temptation to construe the record liberally in his favor. Second, we have previously stated "that the local Boards should liberally construe all registrants' communications. . . ." muted'States v. Hasmuk, 419 P. 2d 929, 930 (1970). The rule applicable to our reviewing function is quite the opposite of that for which appellant contends. In all cases the burden is upon the appellant to demonstrate that the trial court has erred. In appeals from criminal convictions, Qlasser v. United States, 315 U.S. CO, 80, has been cited literally hundreds of times for the proposition that it is our duty to construe the evidence in the government's favor. We must therefore reject appellant's first contention. The second contention focuses on the distinction between a registrant's present opposition to war in any form, notwithstanding an acknowledgment that his present views might change in the future, see United States v.^Owen, 415 F.2d 383, 390 (8th Cir. 1969), cited in Gillette v. United States, 401 TT.S. 437, 448, and a present opposition to particular conflicts rather than all war. The district court focused on this precise"issue and concluded that appellant's opposition was selective. This conclusion has substantial support in the record. In May, 1965, when appellant completed his Classification Questionnaire, he stated "does not apply" in response to the questions appearing in "Series VIIIConscientious Objector." In January of 1968, after receiving notice that his classification had been changed to -I-A,. appellant applied for exemption as a conscientious objector on SSS Form 150,

71-1712

supplementing the form with n six-page typewritten statement. Form 150 contains a printed statement reading, in part', as follows: "I am, by reason of my religious training and belief, conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. . . ." Before defendant signed the form he substituted for the words "\var in any form" the words "the war presently being waged in Vietnam." In his supplemental statement he explained the substitution on the basis of his conviction that his views were similar, if not identical, to those held by approved conscientious objectors, and that he was convinced he "should' submit as honest a statement of my beliefs as possible and see if there is any way for you to g/ant me such a status." He also stated, "... I can say that I generally 'believe in' the use .of force for'defensive or self-'preservational purposes only." Appellant requested and was granted a personal appearance before the local board. At that appearance he made statements to the board which were incorporated in a written summary which he 7 stated was reasonably accurate. According to that summarj , appellant said: "It is very difficult to decide if I am opposed to all war.. I crossed out the statement on the questionnaire" concerning being opposed to all wars. However, the war facing America today is one in which I can't participate. I cannot say for sure that there aren't some wars where perhaps I would take up a gun. * * * "I said I'm not sure. I object to all war, but I . realize that there are calls to duty that are legitimate. j I just don't think that this.one is legitimate." In a letter written to the board on the following day, appellant stated that he believed his submission, if properly interpreted: ". . . would show that I am as opposed to participation in all wars on the basis of religious training and belief as any conscientious objector but I have no way . in my powergranting the way I make decisionsto say with a decent amount of. certainty that I do, indeed, have this objection and will continue to have this objection until the time when I am too old and feeble to bear arms.

 71-1712

The major stumbling block in our discussions was 'all wars.' The members of the board didn't seem to understand that my objection to the war in Vietnam is a deep-seated one and extends to the type of war being fought in Vietnam and the type of attitudes and foreign policy that helps our leaders fall into such predicaments with the population of this country stumbling, senri-willingly, along behind. Most likely my objection to participation in wars of this type will continue throughout the years I remain draft-eligible. This is the only type of involvement that we will be engaged in, most probably. This is the cancer that it may take the United States twenty to' forty to onehundred years to cure herself of. "So, for all practical purposes, I will oppose and re-, fuse to fight in all wars that I am ever asked to fight in ... probably. But it would be a lie for me to even suggest that I know in all certainty that 'some freak, non-offensive skirmish will not pop ,up in my lifetime. I could not decide upon something like that until the time arose." Before receiving appellant's letter, the local board decided not to change his classification from I-A to 1-0. The board treated -his letter as an appeal from that classification and subsequently advised him that his appeal had been considered but that his classification would not be reopened. Appellant made further submissions to the board and ultimately the appeal board for the Eastern District of Wisconsin affirmed his classification. The record contains a summary of an interview with appellant by F.B.I, agents who did say that appellant "is conscientiously opposed to war and opposed to the present war in .Vietnam." Also, at his trial, appellant testified that no war of which he had any knowledge had ever been fought anywhere in which he would have been willing to participate. However, he was unwilling to testify that he would not participate in_ a war if the United States itself were attacked by a foreign power.

71-1712

Reading the record as a whole, as appellant argues, there is support for his position that he is sincerely opposed to all forms of war and is merely seeking honestly to avoid giving untruthful answers to questions about hypothetical possibilities that he does not foresee. On the other hand, it is also quite clear that there is ample evidence in the record to support the finding -which the district court made. We therefore conclude that appellant's second contentionthat the district court was required to find that he was conscientiously opposed to war "in any form"must be rejected. Finally, appellant's reliance on United States v. Lemmens, 430 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1970), does not require reversal. Under the rule of that case the failure of a local board to state reasons for rejecting a claim of a conscientious objector does not invalidate a classification unless "the registrant described a belief which on its face fulfilled the legal requirements." Id. at 624. Appellant's alteration of the Form 150 by substituting the phrase "the war presently being waged in Vietnam" for the words "war in any form" prevented his application from 'fulfilling, on its face, the legal requirements. Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. The judgment is affirmed. A true Copy: Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

USCA 40151116 Scheffer

Press,. Inc.,

Chicago,

IllinoisS-7-72200

~T

10 January 1972 C. Richard Nelson, Superintendent of Schoola V. Thatohar Petereon, Coordinator of Employe* ServioeB SUBJECTi
!

John Lehman I checked today with Charlee Constant!ne about the status of Mr. Lehman* appeal to the Seventh Circuit. He said that Mr. Lehman** brief had been completed, but in early December the government aaked for in extension of the tixe by vhloh it* brief aurt be in. The time was extended until January 17, 1972. Mr* Constantino ha* no idea of when the cane will oome up for argument. The work of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal! ha* iaoreaeed aince one of the maaberB ha* temporarily withdrawn from ervioe owing to the hot breath of aoandal. I aaked Mr* Oonrtantine to keep ae infor&ed of progreaa of the appeal.

WTPikka

April 29, 1971

Mr. William C. Kahl State Superintendent State Department of Public Instruction 126 Langdon Street Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Dear Mr. Kahl) I am writtog to inform you that one of our high achool tcachera, John Lehman, has been convicted of a felony in the U.S. District Court. This conviction traa baaed on hie refusal to report for induction in the armed forces of the United States in 1968, His refuial traa bated on hie stated position aa a conscientious objector toward the present war. Be did not, however, indicate that he opposed all ware, aa In good faith he felt he could not truthfully cay this. The Supresae Court of the United States has presently decided that perioni can not be aelective conscientious objectors. Mr. Lehman appears to fall within this category, A pre-sentence investigation it presently taking place and he will be sentenced in about four weeks. Whether this sentence contains probation or a prison term, it will be appealed. At this time we feel Mr. Lehman is certainly qualified to teach children and we would feel nhere ia no reason why he should lose hie certification. I am informing you of this for your information only and vill maintain contact with you aa the situation progresses, Sincerely yours,

Riehard Nelaon Superintendent of Schoola RNtrak eer Personnel

3171972
0
August 14, 1972

Mr. Delbert L. Fritchen Unified School District No. 1 2230 Northwestern Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53404 Dear Mr. Fritchen: On August 7th the U. S 0 Federal Court of Appeals found me guilty of induction refusal in 1968. As you know, the school board had asked that I resign if I was found guilty on appeal. Therefore, I offer this letter of resignation effective.this date.

PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500

July 18, 1975

T oilman

Ref: Dear Mr. Lehman:

278-LJW-C

President Ford has accepted the recommendation of the Presidential Clemency Board and has signed a master warrant which granted you a full, free and unconditional Pardon pursuant to Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States. The Attorney General will soon send you your individual Pardon. The Pardon will restore all federal civil rights which you lost upon your criminal conviction, including the right to run for federal office. You will also find your Pardon helpful in restoring certain state civil rights, such as your right to vote and to obtain a license to work in certain occupations from which you are now barred by state law. If you are currently under probation or parole supervision for a Selective Service violation for which you have received clemency, you should promptly bring this letter to the attention of your Probation Office. If your Probation Officer has any questions, have him contact the Presidential Clemency Board. If you have further questions about your Pardon, please ask an attorney or write or call the Presidential Clemency Board. The telephone number is (202) 634-4820 or 634-4823. Congratulations and best wishes for the future. Sincerely,

Charles E. Goodell Chairman CEGrem

February 5, 1976

Mr. Delbert Fritchen Personnel Director

Unified School District #1 2230 Northwestern Avenue

cT^ \

Racine, Wisconsin 53404

T.T

CH

Dear Mr. Fritchen: I am writing to re-apply for a secondary social studies, economics or history teaching position and to let you know that I am still very much interested in employment at Unified. During our last discussion in September and on numerous occasions dating back to May, 1973 I have asked to be re-considered for fulltime or part-time employment. My applications have been unsuccessful and I don't understand it. Could you please answer some questions to help me understand why you have failed to act positively on my re-application? First, I would be most grateful if you could please explain the procedure involved once you receive an application. Are eligible applicants put on a specific list? Is this document referred out to various schools? Or is everything centralized in the personnel director's office? Is the procedure different for full and for part-time teaching applicants? Secondly, I would very much appreciate knowing about the personnel committee meeting which took place, I believe, in mid-October, 1975. Rev. Howard Stanton told me a week or so after the meeting that my name was discussed. He said that a vote was taken on whether or not I could be hired and by a 2-1 margin it was decided that I was not to to be considered for employment. Is this correct? It is not clear to me from his explanation just what information was presented to this committee that would convince two school board members to vote against me. What material was presented to this committee? And, for what reason or reasons did the vote go against me? May I have an appointment to appear in person before this committee so that I might answer any objections they might have?
Finally, I would very much appreciate a listing of the openings

which existed at Unified since May, 1973 for which I was qualified and for which someone was hired. You would be most kind to respond in writing to these queries. Thank you so much.

February 17, 1976

John W. Lehman

Dear Holm: I have received your recent correspondence questioning re-employment possibilities in the district, and requesting additional information regarding teachers hired in Social Studies positions since May of 1973. 1 think it would be easier to discuss the requests you have made in person, and would ask that you call my office so that we can establish a convenient time to meat. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely,

Delbert L. Fritchen Assistant Superintendent, Staff Personnel Services DLFieh

I$WL

State of Wisconsin \

Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations

Please Reply to:

EQUAL RIGHTS DIVISION

Milwaukee State Office Building 819 N. 6th Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

John Lehman
omplainant

vs.

DISMISSAL

Racine Unified School District #1 Board of Education of Racine Unified School District #1 2230 Northwestern Avenue Racine, Wisconsin i>3404 Respondent Date of Complaint Basis of Discrimination

ERD Case #7605700 EEOC TMK #6-1939

May 24, 1976

creed

A complaint alleging discrimination was filed with the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations on the above date. Subsequent attempts to reach the Complainant, by 1st class and certified mall, as well as by telephone, have been unsuccessful; and 20 days having passed. Therefore, the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, having been fully Informed and having no objections, hereby ORDERS Said complaint be, and hereby is, dismissed without prejudice. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin JAU 3

Prince Equal Rights Officer FP:dz cc: John Lehman Racine Unified School District EEOC

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

342 NORTH WATER STREET MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53202 TELEPHONE: (414) 291-1111

IN REPLY REFER TO:

i
Racine Unified School District #1 2230 Northwestern Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53404 Gentlemen:

Charge No: 055761939 706 Nos 7605700 LEHMAN, John W. . vs RACINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 Racine, Wisconsin

This will advise you that the above-mentioned Charge Number for which you received our EEOC Form 131, "NOTICE OF CHARGE OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION", has been administratively closed without prejudice by this office. This case may be reactivated at any time within the next six (6) months. Respondent is therefore obligated by Section 1602.14 of the Commission's Regulations to preserve the relevant records. On behalf of the Commission:

KATHLEEN BLUNT District Director KB:WNH:CC:SJR:rw