The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a split decision, reversing a lower federal court’s finding that two school employees lacked standing to bring a First Amendment claim against the school district. Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District concerns a school district requiring its staff to attend an equity training program. In its reversal, the appellate court also vacated more than $312,000 in attorney’s fees for the school’s defense counsel that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri awarded to the employees for their “frivolous” claims.
After the lower court dismissed their claim for lack of standing, the employees argued that they had alleged an injury because they had shown an objectively reasonable fear of negative consequences. More specifically, the employees stated that the equity trainers eschewed opposing views, and the school district threatened to withhold mandatory professional development credit if the employees refused to attend or act “professional” during the session. In response, the school district argued that the employees received professional development credit and regular pay, despite articulating opposing viewpoints during the session.
In its decision, the appellate court concluded that the record from the lower court contained “specific facts supported by evidence” showing that the school district had credibly threatened adverse consequences for nonattendance at the training session. According to the court, the employees’ allegations that the trainers’ session had a chilling effect on their speech lest they suffer negative repercussions constituted an injury in fact. The court also found the threat of adverse consequences to be “more than minimal or wholly subjective,” but objective and rising to the level that ordinary persons would censor themselves, as the employees reportedly did during the training.
As a result, the majority concluded that the employees had presented sufficient evidence to confer Article III standing in the case. Furthermore, since the court’s decision found the suit to be neither frivolous nor groundless, vacating the attorney’s fee awards was necessary.
The dissenting judges stated that being “professional” or being asked to leave during a training is not the same as being “chilled” from speaking. In fact, the employees could and did speak freely to express their disagreement with the trainers. Therefore, the dissenting judges concluded that the employees’ alleged fear of adverse consequences was speculative and insufficient. In the dissent, the judges also observed that the majority cited no authority to support its conclusion that requiring public employees to demonstrate an understanding of training materials amounted to injury under the First Amendment.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.