Federal Judge Dismisses Waukesha ‘Rainbowland’ Lawsuit
Former Waukesha teacher said her First Amendment rights were violated when she was fired.
School classroom. Image by Wokandapix on Pixabay
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former first grade teacher who was fired after publicly criticizing the School District of Waukesha for banning a Dolly Parton song.
Melissa Tempel filed a lawsuit against the district in September 2023, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated when she was fired in July of that year.
In late March 2023, Tempel blasted the district on social media after it excluded the song “Rainbowland” by Miley Cyrus and Dolly Parton. The lyrics were widely believed to focus on acceptance, but district officials said they found the song “could be deemed controversial.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph dismissed the case Sep. 29, saying even though Tempel was speaking out as a private citizen, her actions disrupted the district’s operations.
Joseph said even looking at the evidence in light “most favorable” to Tempel, Joseph was unconvinced that the level of disruption shown after Tempel’s tweets was as insignificant as Tempel contends.
“As to potential security risks and disruption, the record indicates that soon after Tempel tweeted, (the school district) received upwards to twenty calls per day regarding the “Rainbowland” decision, many of which consisted of the caller subjecting the recipient to yelling and insults,” Joseph wrote.
Tempel’s attorney, Summer Murshid, with Milwaukee-based Hawks Quindel, said they are “obviously incredibly disappointed in this decision and disagree with the conclusion.”
“We are carefully evaluating all available options, including an appeal to the Seventh Circuit,” Murshid said.
School District of Waukesha Superintendent James Sebert said he’s pleased the matter has been dismissed.
“As always, our focus remains intently on ensuring the academic success, growth and well-being of all of our students,” Sebert said.
Federal judge dismisses Wisconsin school district’s ‘Rainbowland’ lawsuit was originally published by Wisconsin Public Radio.
If you think stories like this are important, become a member of Urban Milwaukee and help support real, independent journalism. Plus you get some cool added benefits.
Since when was our free speech limited by “disruption?” I cannot believe that a federal judge made such a ridiculous decision. It sounds too much like the judge is saying that teachers do not have the same right to speak out against school board decisions that ordinary people have.
This federal judge in essence declared that the School District’s right supersede that of its employees. While this decision may be in line with SCOTUS decisions; it, along with SCOTUS, have made a mockery of our Constitution.
I don’t like school districts curriculum. I get a group of people together to call the office and be belligerent.
Who is responsible for the disruption to education?
If the School Principal or Superintendent had said, “We made a mistake and Ribbonland is a great song,” there would have been no disruption.
And, what did the teacher do? One text while she was at home.
What did the court say? If you have something to say about a school and people will agree with you, don’t say it? If I see the Superintendent stealing money or having a relationship with his or her secretary at work, say nothing – because you will lose your job. The principal gives passing grades to students in art because there is no art teacher; again, says nothing, even though some of the students who passed art didn’t even attend school.
So, what is freedom of speach? A principal is a racist – then you should say nothing? A principal gives a promotion to the young teacher that provides for his or her needs – then you should say nothing? When should you say something?
Wow. Disruption caused by angry citizens, NOT by the teacher. Is the legal standard “don’t upset MAGA?”
The Judge seemed to feel that the Pickering Decision was the guide. . . I don’t understand her reasoning.
The Pickering decision, established in the case of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), affirmed the First Amendment rights of public employees to speak on matters of public concern without fear of retaliation.
Background:
The case arose when Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher in Illinois, was dismissed for writing a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board’s allocation of funds, arguing that too much money was spent on athletics rather than academics. The school board contended that his letter was detrimental to the school’s interests, leading to his termination. Pickering challenged this decision, claiming it violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
Supreme Court Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pickering, establishing that public employees do not lose their right to speak on matters of public concern simply because they are employed by the government. The Court emphasized the need to balance the interests of the employee in commenting on public issues against the interests of the state in promoting efficient public service. The ruling underscored that the government cannot dismiss an employee for speech that does not significantly disrupt the workplace.
Implications of the Decision
The Pickering decision set a precedent for evaluating the speech of public employees, leading to the development of the “Pickering balancing test.” This test weighs the employee’s right to free speech against the government’s interest in maintaining an effective and efficient workplace. The ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving public employee speech, reinforcing the principle that public employees retain their rights to express opinions on matters of public concern without fear of retaliation from their employers.
In summary, the Pickering decision is a landmark case that has significantly shaped the legal landscape regarding the free speech rights of public employees, ensuring that they can engage in public discourse without undue interference from their employers.
——————————————————————————————————————————
The disruption in the workplace was the result of who? Who actually caused the disruption? Was the problem a failure of school leadership and district leadership?
-The Principal could have gone to the Superintendent, and he could have gone to the School Board. The Principal decided that first grade couldn’t sing “Rainbowland.”
Disruption among coworkers – interesting – . . . A failure of leadership resulted in the loss of, by all accounts, a good, caring teacher. Poor leadership has a profoundly negative effect. . .
LittleFrog,
We seem to want to blame “right” or “left” or . . .MAGA movement, nativist political movement that emerged in the United States during the 2016 presidential campaign of its putative leader, Donald Trump. Its name is derived from Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan “Make America Great Again,” which has been a rallying cry for many Trump supporters ever since.
A judge made a decision, and the next step is to appeal that decision. Judges are not always perfect, and they can make mistakes – so, we have appeals. Could you help with the appeal?
What about not voting for those on the board who voted to fire this teacher?
Run against those on the school board or donate money and time to those running against board members.