Meredith Summer, a teacher at Neinas Dual Language Learning Academy within the Detroit Public Schools Community District (District), brought claims of First Amendment retaliation and religious discrimination arising from her employment between 2018 and 2020. Summer, who was the only Jewish teacher at the School, alleged that she was treated less favorably than her colleagues, including being assigned an oversized classroom of more than 36 students, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, while other teachers had significantly smaller classes. She also alleged that received a warning letter for excessive absences after taking time off for a Jewish holiday.
In October 2019, Summer was involved in an incident in which a student allegedly hit her and pulled her hair. That evening, she posted on a private, members-only Facebook page for the Detroit Federation of Teachers, describing the incident and expressing frustration that school administrators had not checked on her wellbeing. Shortly thereafter, the District issued her a written warning, stating that her post violated District policy. An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Summer had told the student to “step in the hallway to fight,” and the student was recommended for expulsion review.
In June 2020, the District issued a report summarizing multiple allegations of misconduct against Summer, including threatening a student, failing to supervise students, and inappropriately touching a student. Based on these findings, the District recommended her termination. Instead, in September 2020, Summer received a 14-day unpaid suspension in lieu of termination and later transferred to another school. She alleged that the District shared disciplinary records with her new school, including the 14-day suspension letter and other documents relating to the investigation.
Summer filed suit asserting, among other claims, that the District retaliated against her for her Facebook post in violation of the First Amendment and discriminated against her based on her religion in violation of Michigan law. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
The Court of Appeals first addressed Summer’s First Amendment retaliation claim. As a public school employee, Summer was required to show that she engaged in protected speech on a matter of public concern. Although the Court acknowledged that she spoke as a private citizen when posting on her personal Facebook account, it found that her post did not address a matter of public concern. Instead, the post focused on a personal workplace grievance, her interaction with a student and dissatisfaction with the administration’s response, rather than broader issues of public interest such as systemic school safety concerns or misconduct. The Court emphasized that “internal personnel disputes” and “employee beef” do not qualify as matters of public concern, even if they touch on topics like classroom violence. Because her speech was not protected, her retaliation claim failed as a matter of law.
The Court also rejected Summer’s religious discrimination claim. While assigning a teacher to a significantly larger class could, under some circumstances, constitute an adverse employment action, Summer failed to establish that the assignment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. To do so, she needed to show that similarly situated non-Jewish teachers were treated more favorably. However, the Court found that she relied primarily on her own observations and beliefs, without identifying comparable employees who were similarly situated in relevant respects. Her conclusory assertions, without supporting evidence, were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Because Summer failed to demonstrate protected speech or evidence supporting an inference of discrimination, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the District and its administrators.
Summer v. Detroit Pub. Schs. Cmty. Dist. (6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) 2026 LX 112505.
Note: This case addresses First Amendment protections applicable to public school employees, which generally do not apply to private school employees. Private schools have greater discretion to regulate employee speech; however, they should proceed cautiously when disciplining employees for workplace-related communications. Even where speech reflects a personal workplace grievance, it may still be protected under the National Labor Relations Act if it constitutes “concerted activity” regarding working conditions (e.g., student safety, class size, or administrative support).