Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—D. Md.: School teachers who expressed support for Palestine advance First Amendment retaliation claims, (Jul 21, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

One teacher added, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” to her work email signature and the other two posted pro-Palestine sentiments on social media.

Three school teachers who were transferred to other schools after expressing support for Palestine were able to move forward with their First Amendment retaliation claims, ruled a federal district court in Maryland. The defendants failed to set forth facts that the court would need to address the Pickering factors when considering public versus private speech, and thus the court denied their motion to dismiss the claims as they related to social media postings and one teacher’s work email signature. However, the court did grant the motion as to the teachers’ employment discrimination claims, determining that a transfer to another location was not an adverse employment action (El-Haggan v. Board of Education for Montgomery County, No. 24-cv-00442-LKG (D. Md. July 16, 2025)).

The three plaintiffs in this case are public school teachers. Following the events of October 7, 2023, they individually expressed their opposition to Israel’s response to the terrorist attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza.

Clothing. One teacher began wearing clothes with the phrases “Free Palestine” and “Free Gaza” to work along with homemade pins and buttons expressing her support.

Email signature. In addition, she also added the phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” to her work email signature which she used for internal communications. She was informed that she would be placed on paid administrative leave because of this signature. An investigation found that she had violated district policy by wearing clothing and using an email signature that promoted genocide.

Subsequently, she was transferred to a new school. According to the teacher, this caused her to experience stress and lost income as she was unable to complete her private tutoring sessions.

Social media posts. Another teacher posted about Palestine on her social media accounts. Parents who saw the posts complained to the school. The teacher was placed on leave and an investigation found that she too violated district policies. A five-day suspension was recommended but was never implemented. She was then transferred to another school and asserted that the increased commute time and an increase in stress and anxiety led to a panic attack.

A third teacher also posted pro-Palestine sentiments on her Facebook page. Several of these posts were reported by a parent. An investigation also found that she had violated district policies and she too was transferred to another school.

Subsequently, all three teachers filed this lawsuit alleging that they had suffered First Amendment violations as a result of “a broad, unofficial policy that discriminates against Palestinian speech and was instituted by all Defendants.” They also asserted employment discrimination claims alleging that the defendants violated Title VII and the MFEPA.

Classroom speech. To begin, the court addressed the teachers’ First Amendment retaliation claims. Here, the court found that the one teacher who wore pro-Palestine clothing and accoutrements in the classroom could not assert a claim based on her choice of outfits. It was clear that she was not speaking as a private citizen in this regard, explained the court, finding her speech to be curricular in nature because her students and their parents were likely to regard such speech in the classroom as approved and supported by the school. Accordingly, the retaliation claims concerning these clothing choices was dismissed.

Internal communications. Turning to whether the teacher could state a plausible claim as it related to her work email signature, the court noted that it was a close call. However, the court determined that this constituted speech on a matter of public concern and the teacher engaged in this speech as a private citizen. There was no evidence that this email account was used to communicate with parents or children, thus obviating the risk that the email signature would appear to be supported by the school.

Continuing with its analysis, the court found the factual record to be insufficient to perform the required balancing test under the second prong of Pickering. Although the complaint contained factual allegations showing the email signature was disruptive to the workplace, there were no other facts, such as whether the speech impaired the maintenance of discipline by school supervisors or impeded the performance of the teacher’s duties. As such, the court declined to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim as it related to the email signature.

Personal accounts. For similar reasons, the court declined to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claims brought by the two other teachers. Their comments were limited to their personal social media accounts, observed the court, and they did not engage in this speech pursuant to their duties as teachers.

Moreover, the factual record was again insufficient for the court to determine whether the Pickering balancing factors supported the defendants’ decision to regulate this speech. There was some evidence that the speech was disruptive given the parental complaints, but any record of disruptions beyond that was not before the court. Accordingly, the court declined to dismiss these claims.

Sovereign immunity. Next, the court considered whether the Board of Education for Montgomery County (MCBOE) was entitled to sovereign immunity on the teachers’ Section 1983/First Amendment claims. Answering this question in the affirmative, the court noted that Maryland courts have consistently held that county boards of education are agencies of the state and are thus entitled to sovereign immunity from Section 1983 claims. As such, the teachers’ claims against the MCBOE were dismissed.

Employment discrimination. Finally, the court addressed the teachers’ employment discrimination claims. Here, the court found the claims failed as the teachers did not experience an adverse employment action.

Paid administrative leave is not an adverse employment action, explained the court. The recommended five-day suspension of one of the teachers would have been an adverse employment action, but that recommendation was never carried out. Further, the teachers failed to allege facts showing that their transfers affected the terms of their employment. Assignments that are “less appealing” to an employee are insufficient to meet this threshold, said the court. As to the assertion that one teacher lost income related to her outside tutoring work, the court noted that this work was not performed under the auspices of her employment with the district and could not be used to support this claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the employment discrimination claims.

The case is No. 24-cv-0442-LKG.

Judge: Griggsby, L.

Attorneys: Gadeir F. Abbas (Council on American-Islamic Relations) for Hajur El-Haggan. Lauri Elizabeth Cleary (Lerch, Early & Brewer) for Board of Education for Montgomery County.

Companies: Board of Education for Montgomery County

Cases: IndividualRights CoverageLiability Discrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation MarylandNews