9th Circuit Remands Free Speech Case

Posted on July 14, 2025

Important Takeaway: When determining if a government entity can regulate its employee’s speech, the courts must determine if the entity as a legitimate interest in avoiding a workplace disruption.

Facts: In February 2021, Grant Pass School District No. 7 (the District) distributed an administrative memo on “Gender Identity, Transgender, Name, and Pronoun Guidance” to their employees. The memo informed District employees that the District would adhere to the Oregon Department of Education’s Guidance on the same topic, namely, respecting students’ wishes to be referred to by their chosen pronouns and, when applicable, their preferred name. Additionally, when parents are unaware of their child’s name change at school, the administrative memo instructed staff to balance the student’s well-being with the obligation to maintain accurate student records.

In response to the administrative memo, Rachel Sager, the assistant principal at a District middle school, and Katie Medart, a science teacher at the same middle school, started the ‘I Resolve’ movement. ‘I Resolve’ is a parents’ rights campaign backed by Christian values and conservative beliefs.

On March 6, Sager and Medart drafted a resolution for the school, which included changes to the policy created by the February administrative memo. Two weeks later, Sager met with the District’s HR Director to discuss the resolution, the ‘I Resolve’ website, and Sager’s intent to make a promotional video for the movement. The HR Director did not indicate to Sager that their movement violated any District policies. Sager then met with the District Superintendent. Again, no concerns were raised. The District’s week-long spring break began the next day.

While on break, Medart used her school email to share the movement and respond to constructive feedback from school staff. Additionally, Edgewater Christian Fellowship sent the ‘I Resolve’ video to Medart’s school email, which Medart responded to with her school email. The video features Medart discussing a conversation she had with a coworker about a student undergoing a gender identity journey. While Medart did not include the student’s name, multiple staff members were able to identify the student she described. Sager and Medart uploaded the video to YouTube on March 25.

The following day, Sager and Medart emailed Edgewater Christian Fellowship, Ben Shapiro, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Prager U, asking for support and publicity. Both Sager and Medart cc’d their school emails and signed the messages “Rachel Damiano and Katie Medart, Southern Oregon Assistant Principal and Southern Oregon Science Teacher.”

On March 29, the first school day after spring break, Sager used her administrative authority to unblock the ‘I Resolve’ website from the school servers. Sager explained that their servers automatically block every new website domain until an administrator unblocks it.

The next day, Medart sent an email from her school account to the school accounts of two other District employees, stating, “Thank you for the time today!” and providing a link to the “I Resolve” website. Later that day, one employee responded: “I just signed it.”

While Sager and Medart publicized their movement, the District Superintendent received several verbal complaints from teachers and staff regarding ‘I Resolve’. Sager and Medart met with the Superintendent to discuss the complaints and explain that no formal complaints had been lodged. However, some of the informal complaints included allegations of Sager and Medart violating specific District policies.

On April 3, four District employees lodged formal complaints against Sager and Medart for: (1) using District time and resources for a political campaign; (2) not using a disclaimer when engaging in controversial speech; and (3) various policies related to disrupting the school environment. Additionally, staff lodged a complaint against only Medart for posting confidential information about a student.

On April 5, the District placed Sager and Medart on administrative leave for a “significant disruption that is impacting the entire district.”

On April 6, after receiving another complaint about Sager and Medart, the District Superintendent released a statement disavowing the ‘I Resolve’ movement and reiterated the District’s mission of providing a safe and welcoming learning environment for all students.

On the same day, the middle school principal and Director of HR interviewed Sager and Medart. The Director of HR asked Medart if she could adhere to the policy of referring to students by their preferred pronouns and names. Medart could not answer the question at that time, and later in the interview, when asked if her faith interfered with her ability to do her job, she said it did not. The principal then interjected that part of her job is to follow District policy, and it is worrying that she could not answer the preceding question.

Later that night, a student who was currently enrolled in the District emailed a complaint to Medart herself. The student said they “felt bad” for her transgender students because their teacher “doesn’t support them and openly speaks against their rights. By April 9, six District employees, three former students, and one current student lodged formal complaints against Sager and Medart.

The District then hired an independent investigator to determine if Sager and Medart violated any District policies. Sager and Medart were found to violate the following four policies: (1) using district resources for a political campaign; (2) using time during the workday for a political campaign; (3) failing to use a disclaimer while engaging in controversial speech; and (4) using social media in a way that disrupts the school environment. Medart was additionally found to violate District policy by describing a confidential email about a student in the “I Resolve” video.

The school board terminated Sager and Medart in July. In November, the school board heard Sager and Medart’s appeal and reinstated them. However, both Sager and Medart were transferred to GPFlex, the District’s virtual campus. Specifically, Sager was placed in a role with limited interaction with students.

Court findings: While on administrative leave, Sager and Medart filed a lawsuit against the District claiming their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Additionally, Sager and Medart brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Oregon Constitution.

The lower court granted summary judgment on all claims to the District. When a party wins on summary judgment, the judge decides, as a matter of law, that there is no way a reasonable jury could find in favor of the other party. To win, all relevant facts must not be disputed. Additionally, all inferences must be made in favor of the non-moving party. In other words, to succeed on summary judgment, the moving party cannot rely on disputed facts. So, the lower court found no disputes of relevant facts and ruled in favor of the District.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found multiple disputes relevant to the Pickering Analysis, which is the test used to determine whether First Amendment right to Free Speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal Protection have been violated. While there is some evidence of a disruption in the school environment, the court was not presented with enough facts to grant a summary judgment to the District.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the lower court’s order of summary judgment and remanded the case back to the lower court to conduct more discovery. However, it is more likely that the District’s insurance company would rather settle than pay the litigation fees.

What this means: The Ninth Circuit, which Montana belongs to, applies the Pickering Analysis for First Amendment Free Speech claims. The government has an interest as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differs significantly from its interest in regulating the speech of the general citizenry. Using Pickering, courts balance an individual’s right to free speech with the government’s (school district) legitimate interest in avoiding a workplace disruption. Further, school districts only need to show a ‘reasonable prediction’ of a workplace disruption.

In the context of K–12 education, employee speech may also disrupt the “school’s operations or curricular design” by “erod[ing] the public trust between the school and members of its community.”

Damiano v. Grant Pass School District No. 7, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2025. Read it here.

Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.