In a significant ruling that overturns a lower court’s decision, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting *en banc*, has found that two employees of the Springfield R-12 School District have standing to sue over mandatory “Fall District-Wide Equity Training” they claim violated their First Amendment rights. The appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims, vacated an award of attorney’s fees against the employees, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
The case centers on claims by Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley, both school district employees, who alleged the 2020 training program amounted to viewpoint discrimination, forcing them to self-censor or affirm beliefs they did not hold.
Mandatory Training and Alleged Coercion
The plaintiffs, who had long tenure with the district, were required to attend the equity training, both in-person and online formats covering similar material. Failure to attend, they understood, meant they would not receive credit—and thus, not full pay.
The training included mandatory participation rules, such as keeping cameras on during virtual sessions, and presented “Guiding Principles” requiring attendees to “Speak YOUR Truth,” “Acknowledge YOUR privileges,” and “Be Professional.” Crucially, trainers explicitly warned staff they needed to have “courageous conversations,” share personal experiences, and that silence from white staff could be considered a form of “white supremacy.” A PowerPoint slide further warned: “Be Professional — Or be Asked to Leave with No Credit.”
The plaintiffs presented evidence detailing specific instances where their dissenting views were met with hostility or outright rejection by trainers and peers. Henderson recounted being told she was “wrong and confused” after offering her perspective on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Lumley experienced a “very hostile” environment after expressing that not all police officers are “bad,” leading her to “shut down” out of fear of reprisal.
A significant element of Henderson’s claim involved mandatory online modules. To advance through multiple-choice questions, employees had to select the “correct” answer as pre-programmed by the district. When Henderson selected an answer contrary to the district’s stated policy, the system responded with “Incorrect! It is required policy and job responsibility,” compelling her to adopt the district’s viewpoint to complete the training.
The Crux of the Ruling: Injury in Fact
The district court had previously dismissed the case, concluding the employees lacked “injury in fact”—a core requirement for Article III standing in federal court. The initial appellate panel agreed but was ultimately overruled by the full court sitting *en banc* (all judges).
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Erickson emphasized that the standing inquiry requires accepting the plaintiffs’ evidence as true at this threshold stage. The court focused on two primary First Amendment injuries: chilled speech and compelled speech.
Regarding chilled speech, the court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated an “objectively reasonable chilling effect on the plaintiffs’ speech.” The threat of being asked to leave, losing professional development credit, and potentially losing pay created a credible threat of adverse consequences sufficient to cause a person of “ordinary firmness” to self-censor. The majority noted that the injury lies in the suppression of speech itself, meaning the plaintiffs do not have to actually suffer termination or docking of pay before bringing a claim.
Concerning compelled speech, the court highlighted the online modules where Henderson was forced to select the district’s “correct” answer to proceed, regardless of her actual beliefs. The majority ruled that this structure went beyond testing understanding; it “forced acceptance or adoption of the school district’s views.”
The court noted an unresolved factual dispute regarding whether this compelled speech occurred during the plaintiffs’ official duties (which would remove First Amendment protection under *Garcetti v. Ceballos*). Because the district court did not fully address this factual dispute, the case must be remanded.
Dissenters Warn of Litigation Floodgates
The *en banc* decision was met with a strong dissent, led by Chief Judge Colloton and joined by three other judges. The dissenters argued that the majority’s finding on standing was erroneous and would open the floodgates to litigation over standard workplace training.
The dissenters contended that the plaintiffs suffered no tangible harm; they received pay and credit, and Lumley was promoted afterward. They characterized the plaintiffs’ fears as “wholly subjective” and not based on an “objectively reasonable fear of negative consequences.”
Chief Judge Colloton argued that directing employees to “be professional” is a basic expectation and does not constitute a constitutional injury. Furthermore, he dismissed Henderson’s module claim, stating that requiring an employee to select the “credited response” in a test setting does not equate to compelling speech under the First Amendment, pointing out that public employers have wide latitude in training parameters.
The dissenters stressed that the evidence showed employees were met with disagreement and criticism, but not credible threats of sanction from the employer for their views, save for the general requirement of professionalism.
Attorney’s Fees Vacated
Because the appellate court reversed the finding of no standing, the underlying rationale for the district court’s award of over $312,000 in attorney’s fees to the school district—which had deemed the claims “frivolous”—was undermined. The majority vacated this award, suggesting the standing issues, particularly in the context of First Amendment chilled speech claims, are sufficiently complex not to be considered groundless.
The plaintiffs also requested reassignment to a different judge, alleging bias based on the district court’s rulings and fee award. The Eighth Circuit denied this request, stating that judicial rulings alone rarely warrant reassignment unless actual bias is demonstrated.
The case now returns to the Western District of Missouri for further proceedings consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s findings on standing.