Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—7th Cir.: Teacher with disciplinary history, fired for Facebook posts, cannot revive claims, (Aug 27, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Even with minimal privacy settings, because the bulk of her audience consisted of former students her posts “functioned more like a stage whisper than a secret.”

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the First Amendment claims brought by a former high school teacher who was terminated after posting racially inflammatory content to her Facebook account, the Seventh Circuit determined that the school district’s interest in addressing actual disruptions and averting future disruptions outweighed the teacher’s free speech interests. Prior to the controversial posts, the teacher had been twice suspended for using profanity in the classroom, and the district had emphasized that this was her third strike, not an isolated incident. Further, even though the teacher’s account was set to “private,” her audience largely consisted of former students, a fact that carried a “clear risk of amplification” that was likely to get back to the district, current students, and their parents (Hedgepeth v. Britton, No. 24-1427 (7th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025)).

Until her dismissal in 2020, the teacher taught social studies at Palatine High School, an Illinois public school, for 20 years.

First suspension. Prior to her termination, the district had suspended the teacher twice. The first suspension came in 2016 when the teacher erupted with profanity at her students following the presidential election, using the word “f***ing.” She received a one day suspension without pay and a warning that another similar incident would result in additional disciplinary measures, including termination.

Second suspension. In 2019, the teacher was suspended for a second time. According to the incident report, she said to one student, “You haven’t even done your f***ing homework,” and directed him to “read the f***ing chapter.” She also replied “no shit” to another one of the student’s comments. This time, the teacher received a four day suspension without pay and another warning, along with mandatory counseling sessions.

Facebook posts. The following year, the teacher made a series of posts in the wake of nationwide unrest following the murder of George Floyd. One post stated, in part, “Now that the civil war has begun I want to move.” Another depicted the use of water cannons against civil rights protestors in the 1960s, with the teacher wondering whether the use of such cannons attached to septic tanks would better quell the present day demonstrators. In another comment, the teacher stated, “I find the term ‘white privilege’ as racist as the ‘N’ word.”

According to the teacher, former students constituted about 80 percent of her roughly 800 Facebook friends in June 2020. Both before and after making the posts, the teacher configured her Facebook account to “private” and she did not accept “friend requests” from current students. Nevertheless, those measures were inadequate to keep her “private” posts from the public domain.

Complaints. Predictably, the day after the posts the school principal began receiving complaints from current students, alumni, another teacher, and a parent. The district issued a press release clarifying that the teacher’s posts did not reflect the district’s values.

Termination. A week later, the principal and district superintendent met with the teacher to inform her that they planned to recommend her termination to the school board, citing the teacher’s prior disciplinary sanctions and warnings, along with the public reaction to her Facebook posts.

Following two public meetings, the school board voted to fire the teacher, explaining that the district had received over 135 complaints expressing outrage over the posts, and had received media coverage not only locally, but also from the New York Post.

Lawsuit. While appealing the district decision’s administratively, the teacher filed this lawsuit asserting violations of her First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding the teacher was collaterally estopped from bringing her First Amendment claims because she pursued appellate review before the Illinois State Board of Education and, in any event, her claim failed on the merits. This appeal followed.

Pickering. At the outset, the court noted that it was undisputed that the teacher spoke on matters of public concern when she made the Facebook posts. Accordingly, the court explained that it must apply Pickering balancing to weigh her First Amendment interests against the school district’s interest in workplace efficiency. Ultimately, the court concluded that the district’s interest in addressing actual disruptions and averting future disruption outweighed the teacher’s speech interests.

Actual disruption. First, the court observed that the district produced a “wealth of undisputed evidence of the actual disruption” caused by the Facebook posts, including more than 100 emails criticizing the posts. Further, the disruption was not limited to the school’s students. District operations were thrown into disarray, the posts drew media attention and forced the district “into a costly and time consuming public relations response.”

Given the scale of the fallout on top of the teacher’s prior disciplinary history, the district reasonably concluded that her conduct undermined her job performance, said the court.

Disciplinary history. Critically, continued the court, these disruptions did not occur in a vacuum. The district was entitled to look at the teacher’s entire employment record. That context revealed two prior, serious incidents of workplace discipline for similar violations of the district’s decorum policies.

“The District was not required to wait around for a fourth violation,” said the court.

Private posts. The teacher emphasized that she made her posts on a private, personal Facebook account that did not specifically identify her as a Palatine High School employee. However, the court found that this alone was not enough to carry the day, noting that her decision to post inflammatory comments to an audience that she herself curated—80 percent of whom were part of the school community—carried a “clear risk of amplification.”

Even with minimal privacy settings, the court found the teacher’s audience choice rendered any claim to private speech illusory. “Her posts, though not technically public, functioned more like a stage whisper than a secret,” said the court, and predictably and rapidly circulated within the school community. Thus, the court concluded that the teacher’s posts were not entitled to First Amendment protection and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-1427.

Judge: Maldonado, N.

Attorneys: Paul J. Orfanedes (Judicial Watch) for Jeanne Hedgepeth. William R. Pokorny (Franczek) for James A. Britton, Kimberly Cavill and Anna Klimkowicz.

Cases: IndividualRights Discharge PublicEmployees IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews