Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—D.R.I.: Administration’s interest in staff ‘harmony’ outweighed substitute teacher’s speech rights, (Jun 17, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

His comments on hot-button political and public issues were made in an “insulting, derogatory, and disparaging manner,” including using the terms “murderous butcher” and “criminal” to disparage Dr. Fauci.

A public school system did not violate the First Amendment rights of a high school substitute teacher who it terminated for performance-related issues that included his refusal to discipline a student who ripped up a t-shirt supporting a school-sponsored “Choose to Include” event since he was acting in his official capacity when he allegedly refused to require the student to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. Moreover, while his inflammatory remarks to a co-teacher in front of students concerning the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and the January 6th Capital attack were made as a private citizen and concerned matters of public concern, they were outweighed by the school administration’s strong interest “in guarding against the impairment of relations among teachers” and “considerable interest in implementing the curriculum without undue interference” (Cloutier v. Baker, No. 1:22-cv-00427-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jun. 12, 2025)).

Inclusionary t-shirt incident. The employee worked for the public school system for 12 school days before he was terminated for performance problems that included two incidents that were the subject of his lawsuit. First, he refused a directive to discipline a student who ripped up a “Choose to Include” t-shirt distributed by the school as part of an event purportedly aimed at celebrating the inclusion of students with disabilities. He believed the event advocated for the inclusion of LGBTQ+ students, and that the student engaged in protected speech by objecting to being pressured to make friends with LBGTQ+ people.

Inflammatory politicized remarks. The last straw occurred after a teacher who co-taught a class with the employee complained that he had made “false and frightening statements” in front of students relating to the Dr. Anothony Fauci, the COVID-19 vaccine, and the Capital attack. The co-teacher reported that the discussion began during lunch break, when the employee stated that he was in Washington D.C. on January 6th and felt that the event was more peaceful than was reported. The topic shifted to the COVID-19 vaccine, and he asked if the co-teacher had seen the article links that he had sent via work email. The co-teacher reported that that the articles were about Dr. Fauci and COVID· 19 vaccines killing people, which “were not welcome.”

After they returned to a classroom to resume their co-taught class and students arrived, the employee continued expressing his thoughts on the hot-button issues, including allegedly stating that the vaccines “are designed to kill you,” and Dr. Fauci was a “murderous butcher” who had “experimented on orphans.” These comments prompted the co-teacher to remove his students from the classroom and report the employee’s conduct. He was terminated later that day.

T-shirt incident not protected. The employee first asserted that the administration violated his First Amendment rights by terminating him for refusing to support compelled speech (the students’ wearing of “I Choose to Include” t-shirts) which was contrary to his belief that the government should not compel students to express political positions. However, his claim failed under the Garcetti three-part test since the speech was made pursuant to his official duties as a substitute teacher tasked with maintaining effective classroom management strategies and reporting disciplinary issues.

Vaccine criticisms made as citizen. The other basis for his First Amendment claims surrounded the remarks that he made about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Fauci, and January 6th. The court found that the school system reasonably believed that he made the comments during class time in front of students, but that he did so as a private citizen and not as part of his official duties. Notably, while he made some of the remarks during instructional time, it appeared he was continuing his lunchtime discourse about the topics. It was also undisputed that his statements were directed to his co-teacher and not the students. Accordingly, while he “may have improperly used instructional time to continue to speak on these matters, nothing suggests that when speaking as such, he was doing so in pursuit of his duties as a substitute teacher.”

Matter of public concern. Putting aside their “inappropriate or controversial character,” the employee's statements about COVID-19 pandemic as well as about the attacks on the U.S. Capital touched on matters of public concern. Indeed, his “controversial statements about Dr. Fauci and the vaccine, at its core, express a viewpoint against the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines-which is a topic of public concern.” Moreover, the attacks on the U.S. Capitol “were related to the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election and remains an infamous political event of national significance.”

Balancing test tips against speech. However, the court found that the balancing test weighed strongly in the administration’s favor. Notably, the employee’s First Amendment interest weighed less in his favor than would be typical since he made some of his comments on such hot-button political and public issues in an “insulting, derogatory, and disparaging manner,” including using the terms “murderous butcher” and “criminal” to disparage Dr. Fauci. On the other side of the balancing test, his interest in speaking on matters of public concerns “at the time and in the inflammatory manner he chose” did not outweigh the school administration’s strong interest “in guarding against the impairment of relations among teachers."

His statements impaired the “harmony” between him and his co-teacher and had a detrimental impact on the close working relationship that they had to maintain. Indeed, when the co-teacher reported his statements to the assistant principal he was “outraged” and indicated that that he “had it” and no longer wanted to teach the class with him. Additionally, the administration’s “considerable interest in implementing the curriculum without undue interference easily outweighs [the employee's] interest in expressing himself at the time and in the manner her chose.”

The case is No. 1:22-cv-00427-JJM-PAS.

Judge: McConnell, J.

Attorneys: Thomas W. Lyons, III (Strauss, Factor, Laing & Lyons) for Patrick Cloutier. Sarah F. O'Toole (Conley Law and Associates LLC) for Dyann Baker.

Cases: IndividualRights Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation Covid19 RhodeIslandNews