FOLLOW US

A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday revived a lawsuit brought by two employees of a Missouri school district who claim they were compelled to censor themselves and express views they disagreed with in order to complete mandatory anti-racism training.

In a 6–5 decision, the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the alleged chilling effect of the 2020 training program was sufficient to give the employees standing to pursue claims that their First Amendment rights were violated.

The plaintiffs, a records secretary and a coordinator for students with disabilities in the Springfield R-12 School District, said they felt pressured to conform to the training’s viewpoints out of fear they could lose pay or even their jobs if they openly disagreed with content addressing white supremacy and related topics.

A three-judge panel had previously affirmed dismissal of the case in 2024, concluding that the employees had not suffered a cognizable injury because they were not disciplined for disagreeing with the training materials. The full court disagreed.

“The harm is in the suppression of the speech itself,” Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson wrote for the majority, explaining that employees who self-censored would not necessarily face punishment precisely because they stayed silent.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling, calling it a “huge victory for the First Amendment.”

“We are hopeful it gives others the courage to fight back against discriminatory equity trainings,” the group said in a statement.

Lawyers for the school district did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

According to court filings, the mandatory training was conducted by district employees and could be completed either in person or online. Participants were shown materials including an “oppression matrix” that labeled white people as oppressors and encouraged staff to advocate for political, economic, and social change. Employees were also required to answer questionnaires and could only advance by selecting answers deemed correct by the district.

The plaintiffs filed suit in 2021, alleging the district compelled their speech and discriminated against their viewpoints in violation of the First Amendment.

The district later discontinued the training program after employee complaints and changes to the school board, according to filings.

U.S. District Judge M. Douglas Harpool dismissed the case in 2023, finding the plaintiffs were free to express their own views and had not been harmed. He also ordered them to pay $315,000 in attorney fees and costs, concluding the claims were frivolous.

The Eighth Circuit last year reversed the fee award, agreeing the claims were not frivolous while still finding the plaintiffs lacked standing.

In Tuesday’s decision, five judges dissented, warning the ruling could expose routine employee training programs to constitutional challenges.

“Public employee training will now be fraught with uncertainty,” Circuit Judge Steven Colloton wrote in dissent. “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.”

All but one of the court’s 11 judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

The case was sent back to the district court for consideration of whether the training was part of the plaintiffs’ official job duties, which could limit their First Amendment protections.

The case is Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, No. 23-1880, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.