In Damiano v. Grants Pass School District No. 7, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jun. 17, 2025), (Jun. 19, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the evidence needed for plaintiffs to withstand summary judgment on First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VII discrimination claims.
Read more
Plaintiffs, employees of the Grants Pass School District, initiated an online campaign expressing Christian views on gender identity after the District circulated a memo on “Gender Identity, Transgender, Name, and Pronoun Guidance.” After formal complaints from district employees, Plaintiffs were placed on administrative leave. An independent investigation found Plaintiffs violated District policies by using district resources/work time for a political campaign, failing to include a disclaimer, and disrupting the school environment via social media. One plaintiff was also found to have violated policy by allegedly describing a confidential student email in a campaign video. Plaintiffs sued, alleging religious discrimination and First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The school board initially voted to terminate Plaintiffs but later reinstated and involuntarily transferred them to an online school. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, leading to Plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Oregon state constitution claim and their First and Fourteenth Amendment damages claims against individual defendants. However, it vacated summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and related Monell liability claims against the district, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants, claims against individual board members for termination, and their Title VII discrimination claim.
Regarding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claims, the Ninth Circuit found genuine factual disputes under the Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205 (1968) 391 U.S. 563 balancing test, as the District failed to show sufficient actual or reasonably predicted disruption as a matter of law. For Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court held Plaintiffs did not need to allege protected class membership; their viewpoint-based disparate treatment allegations constituted a cognizable equal protection claim. However, individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on these claims due to their “heightened interest” in responsive action. The Ninth Circuit also exercised discretion to vacate summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment prior restraint and compelled speech claims, finding the district court’s ruling “too unclear for proper review” and that Plaintiffs raised merits arguments for the first time on appeal.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the Oregon Constitution claim based on forfeiture. However, it held individual board members could be liable for Plaintiffs’ terminations despite the majority vote requirement. Finally, the court found triable issues of fact regarding the first and fourth elements of the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting test. It held that Plaintiffs did not need to cite scripture to support their campaign views (Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla. (1987) 480 U.S. 136, 136) nor identify comparators, but could show circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.