The much-ballyhooed brouhaha over how Hinduism is taught in California's secondary public schools has apparently been laid to rest.

A Sacramento federal judge entered final judgment this week in a lawsuit accusing members of the state Board of Education and the state's curriculum czar of unconstitutional actions.

California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials alleged that board members had discriminated against Hindus and their supporters during the 2005-06 adoption process for sixth-grade history and social science textbooks, and that the books represented Hinduism in a demeaning, inaccurate way.

In an order filed Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. approved a settlement agreement in which the board makes no curriculum concessions but agrees to pay the Northridge-based nonprofit $175,000 – a sum unlikely to cover its costs in connection with the suit that was initiated more than three years ago.

When asked if it was true that his client gained nothing, Seattle attorney Venkat Balasubramani said, "That's one way of looking at it."

For further comment, he referred a reporter to Arvind Kumar, a founder and director of CAPEEM, founded for the express purpose of suing the board.

Kumar did not respond to an e-mail.

But Theresa Garcia, the newly appointed executive director of the Board of Education, said Friday she doesn't see it as a no-win for CAPEEM.

"It was a good outcome for everybody," she said of the changes the board made to the adoption process and textbook content following settlement two years ago of a Sacramento Superior Court lawsuit.

"The board worked really hard to make the changes they had requested following the suit" in state court, Garcia said. "We only wanted to ensure that all religions are depicted accurately."

The two lawsuits were filed after months of fierce public debate during which Hindu organizations packed Board of Education meetings and several scholarly panels were convened on how textbooks should present ancient Hinduism. Two groups had proposed hundreds of changes to the textbooks in the fall of 2005.

The Hindu American Foundation, a Maryland-based nonprofit, sued in Superior Court in 2006 to address the concerns of California Hindu parents that they had been ignored in the textbook-selection process, and that their religion was portrayed mistakenly and unfairly in the state's social studies.

Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette rejected the foundation's content claim but found the textbook adoption process was flawed because the regulations governing it had not been fashioned in accord with California's Administrative Procedures Act.

Adhering to the judge's mandate, the state Board of Education published new regulations for the textbook-adoption process.

"Prior to this, the state board was acting arbitrarily, without public comment and behind closed doors," foundation attorney Suhag Shukla said Friday. "Power was given back to the people."

In a post-judgment settlement in June 2007, the board agreed to pay the foundation $250,000 to defray some of its costs.

But by the time CAPEEM settled the federal action, it had virtually no leverage.

In February, in a 63-page order on cross motions for summary judgment, Damrell gutted the suit, leaving only CAPEEM's claim that the textbook-adoption process violated the Constitution's equal- protection guarantee.

But the judge threw out CAPEEM's claim based on the establishment clause, which requires government neutrality toward religion, as well as its free speech and association clause claims.

Call The Bee's Denny Walsh, (916) 321-1189.