According to the decision in Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School Dist., handed down by Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, along with Judges James Loken and Jane Kelly:
During the 2020-21 school year, employees of the school district were required to attend a presentation titled “Fall District-Wide Equity Training.” Attendees were compensated for their time and received professional development credit.
The training was offered in both in-person and virtual formats. During the in-person session, school officials taught attendees how to become “Anti-Racist educators, leaders, and staff members.” The district defined “anti-racism” as actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life. The presenters stressed that practices like color-blindness and remaining silent about racism perpetuated white supremacy.
The presenters clarified that they were not labeling individuals as white supremacists, but rather highlighting how certain actions or statements could support the structural system of white supremacy. They also presented an “Oppression Matrix” categorizing social groups as privileged, oppressed, or border groups. For example, white people were categorized as privileged, biracial people as border groups, and Asian, Latina/o, black, and native people as oppressed groups. Similar instruction was provided during the virtual training.
In addition to the presentations, employees were required to complete online modules consisting of videos, articles, and multiple-choice questions related to equity and diversity. One question asked how employees should respond to racism and xenophobia in the classroom, with the module deeming an immediate response as the correct answer.
The training sessions involved interactive activities, with attendees engaging in discussions based on specific prompts. The sessions included exercises like “Four Corners,” where attendees expressed agreement or disagreement with prompts related to the school environment.
Throughout the training, instructors emphasized professionalism with a slide stating: “Be Professional—Or be Asked to Leave with No Credit.” No attendees were asked to leave or penalized for their conduct during the sessions.
Two employees, Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley, had differing experiences during the training sessions. Henderson expressed a controversial view during the virtual training and felt intimidated, while Lumley shared personal opinions during the in-person training and received differing responses from the presenter.
Despite their experiences, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were not violated, as they were not punished for their speech or lack thereof.
Instead, the plaintiffs argued that they were not individually labeled as white supremacists during the training program, but were instead told that certain actions or statements could support the structural system of white supremacy. They also noted that there was no threat of penalty similar to the political damage suffered by candidates in a previous case. The training was criticized as misguided and offensive, but participants were not forced to wear identifying symbols or face any tangible consequences.
The plaintiffs further claimed that they felt indirectly discouraged from voicing dissenting views or remaining silent, both during the training sessions and in their private lives. However, the court found that their fear of punishment was too speculative to constitute a First Amendment injury. While the presenters warned against unprofessional conduct, they did not suggest that expressing opposing views or remaining silent was deemed unprofessional. Attendees who expressed differing views were engaged in discussion but were not penalized in any way.
Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiffs’ concerns about being penalized for not advocating for the school district’s view of “anti-racism” in their personal lives were speculative and not supported by evidence. The training did not dictate employees’ behavior outside of work, and there was no communication that private statements or silence would result in penalties.
Ultimately, the court concluded that requiring employees to answer online questions according to the course content was not unconstitutional speech compulsion, as it was part of their official duties to demonstrate an understanding of the training materials.
While the court overturned the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous, it acknowledged the complexity of the issues at hand and the lack of clear precedent in applying First Amendment doctrines to training of public employees.
Constitutional law in this area is currently being developed and is not completely settled. The issue of whether an employee has the right to sue in this particular context is a new and debatable issue, although we ultimately agree with the district court’s ruling on this matter.
The district court was concerned about the “political undertones” of the lawsuit and how it could undermine the important work of the federal judiciary. However, plaintiffs have a history of testing the boundaries of the case-or-controversy requirement in cases involving current issues. It is the judiciary’s duty to clarify the limited role of the courts in a democratic society. Nonetheless, a plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempt to push those boundaries does not justify awarding fees without stronger evidence of frivolity than what the defendants presented in this case.
Defendants are represented by Ransom A. Ellis, III, Tina Gardner Fowler, and Todd A. Johnson (Ellis & Ellis).
