Summary
This Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a public school district against a former principal’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The plaintiff alleged that her reassignment and suspension were retaliatory responses to her pro-LGBTQ+ advocacy, including displaying a Pride flag and facilitating a Gay-Straight Alliance. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s speech was made pursuant to her official duties as a school principal rather than as a private citizen, and thus lacked First Amendment protection. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence linking her protected activity to the adverse employment action due to intervening staff complaints and a significant temporal gap.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Thomas's pro-LGBTQ+ speech and conduct were made as a private citizen rather than pursuant to her official duties as a public-school principal and therefore were protected by the First Amendment.
- Whether Thomas presented sufficient evidence that protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the district's decision to suspend and reassign her.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas's Minnesota Human Rights Act claims after dismissing the federal claims.
Holdings
- Thomas's creation of the school flag display, distribution of Pride stickers, support for the Gay-Straight Alliance, use of district resources, and use of official school channels constituted speech pursuant to her official duties as a school principal, not speech as a private citizen. That speech was therefore unprotected by the First Amendment.
- Thomas failed to present evidence that officials with employment decision-making authority relied on her private emails, text messages, letters, or advocacy campaign in taking adverse action. She therefore could not establish First Amendment retaliation based on those communications.
- Thomas failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that her pro-LGBTQ+ advocacy was a substantial or motivating factor in her suspension, removal as principal, or reassignment.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Minnesota Human Rights Act claims after all federal claims were dismissed.
Key quotations
“The critical question is whether the speech is “ordinarily within the scope” of the employee’s duties.” (at 6)
“Evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that the intervening staff complaints and independent investigation “eroded any causal connection” between Thomas’s speech and the adverse actions taken against her.” (at 10)
Factual background
Mary Kay Thomas, a longtime teacher and principal, created a school inclusion project that included a Pride flag, distributed Pride-related materials, supported LGBTQ+ students, and helped establish a Gay-Straight Alliance using school resources and official channels. After staff complained that her leadership was divisive and created a negative workplace, the school district investigated her conduct. The investigation concluded that she had contributed to a negative and divided work environment, after which the district suspended her, removed her as principal, and reassigned her to an administrative position.
Procedural history
Thomas sued Marshall Public Schools and related officials under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Title VII, Title IX, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments after she was removed as a middle-school principal and reassigned. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the state claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.