Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D. Mass.: Teacher who told parents about student’s request to use new name/pronouns can’t advance First Amendment claim, (Apr 29, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The middle school teacher was fired for, among other things, sharing sensitive confidential information about the student’s expressed gender identity against the student’s wishes.

A middle school teacher who was fired after she told a student’s father about the student’s email to teachers and staff stating that she was “genderqueer” and revealing her new name and preferred pronouns sufficiently alleged she was talking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern but the Pickering balance weighed in favor or her employer, a federal court in Massachusetts concluded, dismissing her First Amendment retaliation claim. The context and content of her speech, said the court, “‘did not outweigh the school’s considerable interest as an employer in guarding against the impairment of relations among teachers,’ preventing insubordination, and preserving an inclusive school environment” (Manchester v. Town of Ludlow, No. 23-30117-MGM (D. Mass. Apr. 25, 2025)).

The teacher, who began teaching at the middle school in 1999, was well-liked by both students and their parents and often worked with students deemed “at-risk.” In 2020, due to the pandemic, she taught a sixth-grade history class remotely.

Student meeting. During a meeting between the teacher and one of her students, who was struggling academically, the student revealed that she was questioning her gender identity and did not know how to approach her parents. The teacher volunteered to talk to her parents but before she could, she attended a meeting with other teachers who shared her concerns about the student and agreed it was appropriate to contact her parents.

Mother’s email. The teacher then told the student’s mother that the student was questioning her gender identify. Shortly after that, the mother emailed school staff to request that there be no further conversations with the student regarding mental health or gender issues. She separately asked the teacher to work outside of school hours with the student.

In February 2021, the student emailed several teachers and staff that she was “genderqueer” and notified them of her new name and planned pronouns. After meeting with the student, her guidance counselor asked teachers to use the student’s preferred name and pronouns unless communicating with the student’s parents.

Termination. The following month, the teacher ran into the student’s father, a mechanic, when dropping her car off at his garage. After discussing the student’s sibling, and then gender dysphoria and efforts by certain teachers to assist LGTBQ students in “regendering,” the teacher informed him about the student’s email and indicated her belief the email was written by someone else. When the school learned of the teacher’s actions, it ultimately fired her for sharing sensitive confidential information about the student’s expressed gender identity without the student’s consent.

First Amendment retaliation. After determining that the teacher did not plausibly allege a federal constitutional claim against the town, the court turned to her retaliation claim against the individual defendants—the superintendent, school principal, guidance counselor, and a school librarian. Employing the Garcetti framework for evaluating whether the teacher plausibly alleged the conduct at issue violated the federal constitution, the court found she narrowly alleged sufficient facts for it to infer her conversation with the father addressed a matter of public concern.

The Supreme Court, observed the court here, has explained that “sexual orientation and gender identity” are “sensitive political topics, and they are undoubtedly matters of profound ‘value and concern to the public.’” Further, said the court, the school’s policies and procedures, or, as relevant here, the lack of any policies and procedures, for addressing complex questions of gender identity raised by middle school students are matters of political or social concern in the community.

Pickering balancing. Regarding the next step of the Garcetti framework, Pickering balancing, the court noted that in the public-school setting, the government has a “strong interest in preserving a collegial atmosphere, harmonious relations among teachers, and respect for the curriculum.” Further, said the court, not only is it a “well accepted tenet[] that ‘[t]he successful operation of a [public] school requires the person in charge to be in charge and to maintain close working relationships with each of her teachers,”’ the First Circuit has recognized schools have “a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors,” which is “at its apex” when dealing with especially vulnerable children, “such as transgender minors.”

While these are strong government interests, the teacher’s interest, said the court, was minimal in comparison. She was not speaking in a public setting but rather was involved in a private conversation with the father. Nor was she just discussing the school’s policies, but she and the father also discussed the specifics of the student’s situation, which was not a public concern. And during the conversation, she ignored the request of the student’s guidance counselor to not inform the student’s parents about the name and pronoun change until the student could speak with them. The teacher also indicated her beliefs that other faculty members were attempting to “regender” students and insinuated that third parties authored the student’s email to school officials.

Grave moral wrong. These actions, the court stated, “imperiled harmonious relations among teachers, while usurping the chain of command and delineation of responsibility upon which efficient public education relies.” While the teacher argued that she acted to prevent a “grave moral wrong” and avoid setting an “immoral example,” the court pointed out that she also undermined the school’s compelling interest in preserving an inclusive and safe environment for the student.

And even if she had, as she argued, a duty and responsibility to tell the student’s parents, the court noted that this appeared to arise from her own moral code rather than state law or the federal constitution. “These beliefs, even if sincerely held, do not insulate Plaintiff from the employment related consequences of her choice to undercut the school’s greater (and constitutionally recognized) interest in protecting an inclusive and safe environment for transgender minors as a matter of law,” the court asserted, dismissing the teacher’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

The case is No. 23-30117-MGM.

Judge: Mastroianni, M.

Attorneys: Frank L. McNamara, Jr. (McNamara & Associates) for Bonnie Manchester. David S. Lawless (Robinson Donovan) for Town of Ludlow.

Companies: Town of Ludlow, Massachusetts

Cases: Retaliation PublicEmployees Discharge MassachusettsNews GCNNews