Randey Thompson served as an assistant principal at Evergreen Middle School in the Central Valley School District in Washington. In August 2020, after watching the Democratic National Convention, Thompson posted a comment on his private Facebook account. He limited the post’s visibility to his Facebook “friends.” The post criticized the Democratic National Convention and included slurs, profanity, and language suggesting violence against politicians. District employees saw the post and forwarded it to District administrators, who brought it to the attention of the superintendent.
Two days later, District administrators contacted Thompson. He confirmed that he authored the post and stated that he made it on his own time, on his personal device, and intended it as political commentary shared only with friends and family. The District immediately placed Thompson on paid administrative leave, barred him from school property, and prohibited him from contacting students, parents, or staff. Thompson deleted the post shortly after the call.
The District retained outside counsel to investigate the post and its potential impact. During the investigation, employees expressed concern that the post used hateful and offensive language that could harm students, families, and the broader school community. Investigators also gathered information about prior comments Thompson allegedly made at school, including derogatory references to students and remarks viewed as insensitive toward students with disabilities and students of color.
The District then conducted interviews with staff, administrators, and parents to assess the impact of Thompson’s conduct. Interviewees reported shock and concern and questioned Thompson’s ability to serve effectively in a leadership role, particularly as a disciplinarian and representative of the District’s commitment to an inclusive school environment.
The school board held multiple notice-and-opportunity hearings. During those proceedings, Thompson initially claimed that his Facebook account had been hacked, a claim the District investigated and rejected after a forensic review. The District concluded that Thompson had not been truthful during the investigation and that his conduct interfered with the investigative process.
Ultimately, the superintendent transferred Thompson from his assistant principal position to a classroom teaching position. The District cited concerns about disruption, loss of trust, interference with job performance, and inconsistency with the District’s mission of fostering a safe and inclusive educational environment. The school board upheld the transfer.
Thompson sued the District and several individual administrators in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the District retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment by placing him on administrative leave and transferring him because of his Facebook post.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that Thompson established a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim but held that the District prevailed under the Pickering balancing test. It granted summary judgment to the District and held that the individual administrators were entitled to qualified immunity.
Thompson appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit analyzed Thompson’s claim under the two-step Pickering framework governing First Amendment retaliation claims by public employees. Under that framework, the employee must first establish a prima facie claim by showing that he spoke on a matter of public concern, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in that action. If the employee meets that burden, the employer may still prevail by showing that its legitimate interests in workplace efficiency and avoiding disruption outweigh the employee’s speech interests, or that it would have taken the same action regardless of the speech.
At the first step of the analysis, the Ninth Circuit agreed that Thompson’s Facebook post addressed a matter of public concern. Although the post included offensive language, slurs, and violent rhetoric, it criticized a major political event and therefore constituted political speech. The Ninth Circuit also assumed, without deciding, that a reasonable jury could find that placing Thompson on paid administrative leave qualified as an adverse employment action and the Facebook post was a substantial or motivating factor in the District’s decision. Thompson therefore established a prima facie retaliation claim.
The Ninth Circuit then turned to the second step of Pickering balancing. It explained that not all speech on matters of public concern receives equal weight. Speech grounded in an employee’s professional expertise or directly related to workplace issues typically receives greater protection, while speech that is derogatory, inflammatory, or unrelated to the employee’s job may receive less weight.
The Ninth Circuit gave Thompson’s speech limited weight because it was not based on specialized knowledge or insight gained through his role as an educator and because it used disability-related slurs and violent language. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that such language diminished the value of the speech for purposes of the Pickering balancing test, even though it did not remove the speech entirely from First Amendment protection.
On the other side of the balance, the Ninth Circuit held that the District demonstrated a reasonable prediction of disruption. The Ninth Circuit pointed to evidence that Thompson’s language undermined confidence in his leadership, threatened his ability to discipline students and evaluate staff, impaired working relationships, and conflicted with the District’s stated commitment to equity and inclusion. The Ninth Circuit emphasized Thompson’s role as a public-facing administrator with disciplinary authority, noting that the government’s interest in avoiding disruption is heightened for employees in leadership and supervisory positions.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the District’s interest in maintaining a safe and inclusive school environment outweighed Thompson’s reduced First Amendment interest in the Facebook post. Because the District prevailed under Pickering, Thompson’s retaliation claim failed. The Ninth Circuit further held that, because no First Amendment violation occurred, the individual administrators were entitled to qualified immunity.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Top of Form
Thompson v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 365 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025, No. 24-5263) 2025 LX 688930.Bottom of Form
Note: Unlike public school teachers, private school teachers do not have constitutional free speech rights at school. However, off-campus speech, especially on controversial topics, can still trigger community concern and reputational risk. This case illustrates the growing number of cases related to the discipline of teachers and school administrators for their off-duty conduct, political statements, and social media posts.