Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—E.D. Pa.: Philadelphia teacher, disciplined after engaging in pro-Palestine advocacy, partially advances claims, (Jan 15, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The final straw for the district was a social media post in which she stated, “aint no fun when the rabbit got the gun... part two is about to drop.”

The School District of Philadelphia largely avoided several claims brought by a teacher who was suspended and reassigned after violating the school’s social media policy, a federal district court in Pennsylvania found. However, some claims against individual administrators, including Section 1983 retaliation and equal protection claims, were allowed to move forward. The court determined that the speech at issue went beyond the social media post, and encompassed the teacher’s pro-Palestine advocacy and a report of a hostile environment at the school (Ridgeway v. The School District of Philadelphia, No. 25CV2440 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2026)).

The teacher in this case is a Muslim woman of African-American descent who connects her racial and religious identity with her political support for Palestine.

Pro-Palestine speech. According to the teacher, the district stymied speech supporting Palestine in ways that other speech was not. For example, students were not allowed to wear keffiyehs, the school newspaper censored an article on Palestine while allowing one on Israel, and the school cancelled an “Ask a Palestinian” Zoom event after receiving complaints. However, the district did approve a student club at the school to offer peer support and bring attention to Palestinians in Gaza, and allowed students and faculty, including the teacher, to wear buttons stating, “Free Palestine.”

Censorship, harassment. The teacher alleged that she faced censorship and harassment because of her pro-Palestine speech, which intensified in late 2023 and throughout 2024. In late 2023, the district cancelled a professional development course the teacher was intending to present entitled “How to teach the Genocide in Palestine in the Classroom.” In addition, a retired teacher called her a “terrorist” at an alumni event, and in April 2024 she asserted that she was assaulted by another teacher in the hallway because of her pro-Palestine stance. She reported the assault but was purportedly met with inaction and indifference.

Throughout the spring of 2024, the teacher faced increasing scrutiny from the district, fueled by complaints from the newly organized Jewish Families Alliance. When the teacher was invited by a colleague to present on African Diaspora International Solidarity, the Alliance complained. In response, three district administrators required the teacher to present her slides for inspection. The slides were then edited to remove anything that could lead to a discussion of Palestine.

In a related incident that spring, the teacher assigned her students a project for Black History Month, the best of which would be broadcast district-wide. The winning project featured a comparison between Palestinian and African-American art as forms of resistance, which was approved by the school principal. However, after it was presented at one school assembly, white and Jewish staff members expressed discomfort, after which the district opted not to show the project district-wide.

Investigations. When the teacher confronted the district about its decision to censor the student project and its restrictions on pro-Palestine speech, an assistant superintendent admitted the district had made a mistake with regard to the student project. Shortly thereafter, the district’s Deputy of Talent, Strategy, and Culture, directed that an investigation be opened into the teacher for alleged antisemitism.

It was not until June 2024 that the district opened an investigation into another teacher who had recorded the student presentation, posted the recording in the Alliance’s social media group, and identified the student online. The teacher in question requested a sabbatical, which the district granted.

Social media post. In late August, after gaining access to the Alliance’s social media page, the teacher, on her own account, posted, “aint no fun when the rabbit got the gun... part two is about to drop.” The Alliance reported the incident to the district as a threat of gun violence. Six days later, the teacher was placed on paid leave pending an investigation. Unlike the teacher who recorded the student presentation, the teacher was not allowed private legal counsel.

Ultimately, the district issued a five-day unpaid suspension and a permanent reassignment to another school. Subsequently, the teacher filed this lawsuit asserting three theories of liability under Section 1983 against the district and several individually named defendants: (1) First and Fourteenth Amendment retaliation; violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process; and (3) violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection. She also brought claims under Pennsylvania common law for intentional infliction of emotional distress and claims for the violation of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law.

Monell liability. First, the district argued that any claims brought against it that fell under a Monell liability theory should be dismissed because the teacher failed to identify an unconstitutional municipal policy or custom that harmed her. The court agreed.

Nowhere in the teacher’s complaint was it alleged that there was an official proclamation, policy, or edict that led to the alleged harm. This alone required that the teacher’s Monell claims against the district be dismissed, said the court. The fact that the district allowed a club to bring attention to the situation of Palestinians in Gaza, showed a student project on Palestine at a school assembly, and allowed the wearing of “Free Palestine” buttons were not the actions of a municipality that has an official policy of preventing pro-Palestine speech, explained the court.

Further, the teacher failed to establish that the actions of the Alliance and fellow employees could be attributable to the district. These failures proved fatal to her Monell claims, said the court.

Due process. Turning to the teacher’s due process claim, which was predicated on the deprivation of her right to earn a living through the denial of fair and impartial representation, the court found that she had failed to link or connect those actions to any unconstitutional policy or custom, and this claim against the district was also dismissed.

Differential treatment. Next, the teacher argued that the differential treatment she received during the course of her disciplinary investigations allegedly because of her status as a Muslim and African-American was evidence that her Equal Protection claim was grounded in a District “custom, policy, or practice” of religious and racial discrimination. However, she again failed to plead a district policy or custom and to link such a policy or custom to her alleged injuries. Accordingly, her Monell claims against the district and the individually named defendants in their official capacities were dismissed.

IIED. As to the teacher’s state common law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendants contended that the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) barred such a claim. Although the PSTCA contains some exceptions to this immunity for claims arising out of certain negligent acts, it does not have any such exceptions pertaining to intentional torts. Thus, the court found that the teacher’s claims for IIED against the district must be dismissed.

However, the court determined that there is a different analysis when considering the question of immunity for the individually named defendants and the PSTCA did not provide them with a shield. As such, the teacher’s claims against seven of the nine named individuals were allowed to remain for now.

In addition, the defendants argued that the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (PWCA) would prevent the IIED claims against the remaining seven defendants. Not so, said the court, as individuals may be liable to fellow employees if the injuries are the result of an intentional wrong.

Group pleading. With regard to the teacher’s Section 1983 claims against the individual defendants, the defendants argued that the teacher’s complaint should be thrown out in its entirety because it pleads all of the allegations against them “as a monolith.”

Here, the court observed that although the complaint contained some general statements, those statements set the stage and other allegations concerned specifically named defendants. To the extent that a particular claim against a given individually named defendant was not supported by any pertinent allegations, it must be dismissed, said the court.

Individual defendants. Turning to the individual defendants, the court dismissed the teacher’s First Amendment retaliation claim as it related to four of the defendants as there were no pled facts implicating them in this claim. So too for her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims, save for two of the defendants. Her equal protection claim was also dismissed as to five of the defendants.

Retaliation. Addressing the teacher’s First Amendment retaliation claims against the five remaining individually named defendants, the court dismissed this claim against two of the defendants as the teacher was acting in her official capacity when those defendants canceled a training and censored another. However, the retaliation claims remained against the defendants who launched the antisemitism investigation and who placed the teacher on administrative leave.

Due process. All individually named defendants against whom the teacher brought a claim under Section 1983 for deprivation of her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights were dismissed. The court found the teacher was afforded multiple pre-deprivation hearings and an appeal before the district imposed its suspension and subsequent reassignment.

Equal protection. Next the court considered the teacher’s equal protection claim against four of the remaining individually named defendants. This claim was premised on one administrator telling the teacher she could not be represented by private counsel, an administrator approving the other teacher’s sabbatical, and two administrators placing her on administrative leave.

Here, the court dismissed the claims against three of the defendants insofar as they concerned the other teacher being granted a sabbatical. Because the teacher here did not request a sabbatical, the two teachers could not be said to be similarly situated. The same could not be said for the administrator who denied the teacher private counsel, a benefit granted to the other teacher, and thus this claim survived as to the single administrator.

Qualified immunity. Turning to the three defendants who were left to face the teacher’s retaliation claim, they argued that the claims should be dismissed based on qualified immunity. The court was not moved, explaining that the speech in question concerned more than the social media post, and qualified immunity did not apply. This argument also failed as to the remaining defendant on the equal protection claim.

Whistleblower. Finally, with regard to the teacher’s state-law whistleblower claim, the court declined to dismiss this claim as it related to three of the defendants and the district based on their decision to open an investigation and to impose discipline.

The case is No. 25CV2440.

Judge: Beetlestone, W.

Attorneys: Spencer A. Hill, Jr. (Law Offices of Spencer Hill) for Keziah Ridgeway. Margaret Spitzer (Dilworth Paxson) for The School District of Philadelphia.

Companies: The School District of Philadelphia

Cases: IndividualRights CoverageLiability Discrimination RaceDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation StateLawClaims TortClaims Whistleblowers PennsylvaniaNews