Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Wis.: No showing state agency employee’s resistance to CRT led to her demotion, (Aug 5, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“But regardless of whether critical race theory is considered racist or not, DPI’s embrace of it does not, by itself, constitute a violation of Title VI or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

A white integration director for a Wisconsin agency created to serve educational needs in the state failed to show that the agency and the state department of public instruction (DPI) discriminated against her on the basis of her race because of her opposition to, and refusal to submit to, what she characterized as racist ideology DPI imposed and in which her employer acquiesced—critical race theory. The “fatal flaw in Plaintiff’s theory,” said the court granting summary judgment against her Title VI and VII claims, “is that the Civil Rights Act proscribes racially discriminatory actions; it does not prescribe theories or ideas that can lead to racially discriminatory actions” (Spengler v. Cooperative Educational Service Agency 7, No. 22-C-1199 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2025)).

Race and special education. As an integration director for the Cooperative Educational Service Agency, the employee served as a coach for a DPI educational program regarding advancing education equity for students with disabilities. According to DPI, “special education has a unique connection to race,” because, among other things, studies have found that schools with predominantly white students and teachers have placed disproportionately high numbers of minority students into special education.

While DPI argued that two projects on which the employee worked were “designed to improve outcomes for students with disabilities by equipping special education directors and school administrators with the tools and knowledge necessary to address inequities in the educational system,” the employee claimed the “tools and knowledge” constituted a racist ideology and that she was subjected to adverse employment actions because of her disagreement with that ideology and her refusal to personally adopt it.

According to the employee, DPI adopted a “race-based agenda” that categorized all people as white people and people of color and assigned negative attributes and behaviors to all white people as a group based solely on their race but drew no similar race-based conclusions about people of color. Further, she contended, DPI demanded that integration directors not only teach and promote its race-based agenda to the school-based coaches with whom they worked but that they also demonstrate their agreement with and embrace of the tenets of the race-based agenda.

Monthly meetings. The employee was required, as part of the projects, to attend monthly meetings hosted by DPI in which she claimed she was not allowed to share her opposing views to CRT and in which negative statements were made about those who supported Donald Trump. After one meeting, she accidently sent a message to the entire group that was intended only for her husband in which she stated that “I got them to say I can’t do this work if I don’t believe in all this antiracism BS,” and “They incriminated themselves today, big time.”

Troubled by the employee’s comments, DPI requested that she not attend any more meetings. For her part, the employee claimed she had been bullied by the group because she did not believe in systemic racism. She was ultimately removed from working on the projects. She subsequently sued, asserting claims under Titles VI and VII.

Narrow legal question. The court first noted that the employee’s claim was “predicated on a narrow legal question: Does the adoption and promotion of the tenets of critical race theory by DPI and CESA 7 constitute a violation of Title VI or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.” Further, observed the court, “the answer is not readily apparent from the text of the particular provisions at issue.”

Embrace by itself not violation. While the court agreed that critical race theory might appear racist to many, it explained that regardless of whether it is considered racist or not, DPI’s embrace of it did not, by itself, constitute a violation of Title VI or Title VII. Granting summary judgment against the employee’s claims, the court found she failed to show she was discriminated against based on her race. Rather, said the court, “it was her opposition to DPI’s agenda, not her skin color, that led to her demotion.”

Condition of employment. She argued that DPI required, as a condition of her employment, that she confess that she, as a white person, was racist. But there was no evidence she was required to personally admit to being a racist as a condition of her maintaining her position. The court acknowledged that some of the program and instructional materials provided by DPI did state that many white people have racist attitudes and engage in racist behaviors, but it found these statements simply too vague and non-specific as to be almost meaningless. More importantly, said the court, there was no evidence that the employee’s complete agreement with all the positions set out in the DPI handouts was a condition of her employment.

For her part, the employee pointed to an exchange with a team member as proof she was required to confess to being a racist as a condition of her employment. Although in the message she sent to her husband about that exchange, she said she “got them to say I can’t do this work if I don’t believe in all this antiracism BS,” the transcript of the meeting did not support her claim. Rather, observed the court, that team member simply agreed with the employee that it would be difficult for her to carry out her responsibilities under the project initiatives if she did not believe in the message the projects were intended to convey. At no point did the team member, or anyone else, tell the employee she was required to admit that she, as a white person, was a racist as a condition of her employment as an integration director or her participation in the projects.

Incriminate themselves big time. What the transcripts did reveal, however, was that the employee was trying to get the team member and DPI to say things that would incriminate themselves “big time.” It was for this reason, not because of the color of her skin, the court observed, that DPI insisted the employee no longer participate in meetings. Accordingly, the court found the employee failed to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that she suffered discrimination based on her race or retaliation because of her complaint about or opposition to an unlawful employment practice.

The case is No. 22-C-1199.

Judge: Griesbach, W.

Attorneys: George Burnett (Law Firm of Conway Olejniczak & Jerry) for Becky Spengler. Danielle Baudhuin Tierney (Axley Brynelson) for Cooperative Educational Service Agency 7 aka CESA 7. Rachel L. Bachhuber, Wisconsin Department of Justice, for Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

Companies: Cooperative Educational Service Agency 7; CESA 7; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation PublicEmployees ESGNews WisconsinNews