Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—M.D. Fla.: Fired principal, author on mental health crisis, failed to state retaliation claims, (Nov 5, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She had also lodged several internal complaints alleging the school board’s failure to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act regarding a disabled student.

An elementary school principal, fired after she published a book—which the superintendent of schools had discouraged—about her struggles with mental health and the mental health crisis in the U.S., and then lodged internal complaints regarding the school board’s treatment of a disabled student, failed to state claims of retaliation under the ADA, the Florida Civil Rights Act, or the First Amendment, a federal district court found. “[V]aguely alleg[ing] that she lodged several internal complaints” regarding discrimination because of her mental health disabilities, she could not plausibly demonstrate a statutorily protected expression under the ADA or FCRA, said the court. She also failed to plausibly allege a basis for Monell liability on theories that the school board either ratified the superintendent’s purportedly unconstitutional discharge decision or delegated policymaking authority to him (Durance v. The School Board of Glades County, Florida, No. 2:25-cv-137-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2025)).

Elementary school principal. The plaintiff, according to the court, began working for The School Board of Glades County, Florida as a student services director. She was later promoted to principal of an elementary school.

Depression and anxiety. She suffers from depression and anxiety disorder, and she informed the superintendent of schools of these disabilities. She, in turn, initially supported the principal’s struggles with her mental health.

Don’t publish that book... This position changed, however, when the principal informed the superintendent that she intended to write a book about her struggles with mental health, the mental health crisis in the U.S., and how she coped with her struggles. The superintendent asked her not to publish the book, but she went to press anyway.

Internal complaints regarding Rehab Act compliance. Around the same time, the principal also lodged several internal complaints with the school board regarding its alleged failure to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, with respect to a disabled student.

Targeted. A few weeks later, the school board allegedly began targeting the principal for termination.

Complaints to superintendent. The principal then complained to the superintendent that she was being subjected to discriminatory treatment, a hostile work environment, and adverse employment actions because of her mental health disabilities.

Investigated and fired. The school board allegedly ignored her complaints and instead launched an investigation into her conduct. On September 1, 2023, the board suspended her, and on October 30, the superintendent fired her. The board, in turn, ratified her decision during a November school board meeting.

Lawsuit and motion to dismiss. The former principal sued in federal district court, bringing claims of disability discrimination under the ADA and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), as well as retaliation claims under the ADA, the FCRA, the Rehab Act, and the First Amendment.

The board moved to dismiss the ADA, FCRA, and First Amendment retaliation claims.

ADA and FCRA retaliation. Addressing the ADA and FCRA retaliation claims first, the court observed that, to state a viable retaliation claim, “a plaintiff must plead facts that plausibly support a finding that: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal link between the protected expression and adverse action.” Her claim faltered as to the first of these elements.

Attempting to point to statutorily protected activity, she relied on her complaints to the superintendent about being subjected to discriminatory treatment. She “vaguely alleges that she lodged several internal complaints” with her regarding “being subjected to discriminatory treatment, hostile work environment, and adverse employment actions because of her mental health disabilities.” But this allegation, unaccompanied by any factual support, said the court, did not plausibly demonstrate a statutorily protected expression.

“In essence,” said the court, she “alleges nothing more than: ‘I was subjected to discriminatory treatment, I complained about it, and then I was fired.’ Such conclusory allegations are insufficient.” And because of her repeated failure to rectify the pleading deficiency despite the court’s prior advice to her concerning it, the claims were dismissed with prejudice.

First Amendment retaliation and municipal liability. Turning next to her First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court observed that the school board, as a municipal entity, cannot be held liable under Section 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978). But “[m]unicipal liability may arise with regards to an employment decision, such as a termination, provided that the decisionmaker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.” Quinn v. Monroe Cnty., 330 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 2003).

As a general matter, said the court, the school board, not the superintendent, had final policymaking authority here, and so to establish the board’s Monell liability for her termination, she invoked theories of ratification and delegation.

Ratification. First, her ratification theory failed. She alleged that the board was aware of her complaints about being subjected to disability discrimination but nonetheless ratified the superintendent’s unlawful decision to terminate her through a formal board vote during a November 9, 2023, school board meeting, but this was not enough, according to the court. “As the final policymaker, Defendant ‘must ratify not only [[the superintendent’s]] decision itself, but also the unconstitutional basis for it.’” And the mere allegation that the board ratified the superintendent’s decision to fire her with knowledge of her complaints, reasoned the court, did not plausibly allege that the board ratified the allegedly unconstitutional basis for the superintendent’s decision.

Delegation. The delegation theory also failed. To rely on delegation for local government liability, “the delegation must be such that the decision is not subject to review by the policymaking authority,” observed the court, and again, the former principal alleged that the board ratified the superintendent’s decision by vote during a properly noticed school board meeting. “Clearly then, [the superintendent] did not have unfettered discretion to terminate Plaintiff.”

Because the former principal thus failed to allege a basis for Monell liability, her First Amendment retaliation claim failed as well.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-137-SPC-NPM.

Judge: Chappell, S.

Attorneys: Benjamin H. Yormak (Yormak Employment & Disability Law) for Kristi Durance. Kayla Elizabeth Platt Rady (Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell) for The School Board of Glades County, Florida.

Companies: The School Board of Glades County, Florida

Cases: Retaliation Discharge DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination IndividualRights PublicEmployees StateLawClaims FloridaNews