The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled 6-5 to revive a lawsuit alleging that required diversity training by the Springfield R-12 School District violated the First Amendment rights of two employees of the school district. A federal district court had tossed the lawsuit, finding no injury, and an appeals court panel had upheld that finding but reversed the awarding of attorneys’ fees to the school district.
Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley filed a lawsuit in August 2021, claiming that the school district’s mandatory diversity training required them to self-censor and stating that they would not receive credit and would be asked to leave the training if they were not perceived as “professional.” The training included claims that white people are oppressors, and one of the instructors insisted that black people cannot be racist and told Lumley to “reflect on herself more” after questioning that assertion.
“The plaintiffs have asserted that they have shown an objectively reasonable fear of negative consequences sufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact based on the trainers’ responses to their opposing views and the school district’s warning that if they did not complete the training, they would not receive the mandatory professional development credit,” the majority opinion said.
“On appeal, the school district did not take issue with many of the underlying facts the plaintiffs have relied on but instead asserted that a public employer can require employees to attend equity and diversity training, and the plaintiffs’ claims fail because they received credit and pay for attending the training, despite voicing objections to the principles presented,” the majority continued. “Because we find the plaintiffs have presented sufficient details and evidence to establish standing, we reverse the dismissal of their claims and remand to the district court.”
In the majority opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson wrote that with the case, “the harm is in the suppression of the speech itself, and one is not subjected to punishment for self-censorship.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Colloton, writing one of the dissenting opinions, argued the two employees “suffered no tangible harm as a result of the training” and expressed concern about the ramifications of finding standing to bring the constitutional claim.
“Public employee training will now be fraught with uncertainty. An employer who trains on any subject from any point of view, while requiring employees to be professional, is subject to a federal lawsuit by an employee who disagrees with the training and keeps quiet. Only time will tell how the court elects to manage this new front of litigation,” Colloton wrote.
TRUMP’S HISTORIC YEAR OF SUPREME COURT VICTORIES
“If the court’s opinion turns out merely to reflect disapproval of one tendentious training program that judges dislike, then the decision might be good for this day and this ship only. But if the court is true to its word, then the floodgates are open,” Colloton added.
The case will now return to the federal district court for further proceedings on the merits, following the appeals court’s ruling on Tuesday. The en banc appeals court’s ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Court.
