Teacher Disciplined for Saying "Privilege" Training Involved "White-Bashing BS" Can Go Forward with First Amendment Claim
"[T]he only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable."
An excerpt from the long opinion in Grande v. Hartford Bd. of Ed., decided Tuesday by Judge Sarah Russell (D. Conn.):
This case centers around the Hartford Board of Education's investigation and reprimand of Grande for comments he made during a Zoom training held on October 28, 2020…. Grande began working as a physical education teacher for the District in 1989 and continued in that role until he retired on October 1, 2024.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hartford Public Schools stopped in-person instruction for a period of time beginning on March 17, 2020. In fall 2020, Grande was teaching remote physical education to his students…. Avicolli [Director of Arts and Wellness] sent a survey to teachers within her department regarding the level of student engagement during remote classes. Grande answered the survey reporting that not many students were showing up to his remote classes. This lower attendance reflected a national problem of student engagement during the pandemic. After Avicolli conducted the survey, she scheduled a professional development training for teachers in her department. …
The PowerPoint [used at the training] identifies as the "learning target" of the session the following goal: "I can explore my own identity and privilege to better understand how I relate to my students in order to increase engagement and collaboration." The agenda for the meeting shows that the session would include an "Identity and Privilege Activity" and "Break-Out Group Reflection Time" as well as "Closure in Whole Group." The PowerPoint explains that participants will "explore our privilege as related to various social identities" and says "[w]e believe it is critical for everyone to reflect on privilege in this way in order to use our individual and collective privilege(s) for equity and social justice."
The PowerPoint includes an "Identity Wheel" with pie slices that are labelled with categories including race, gender/sex, sexuality, nationality/citizenship, other, religion, class, and ability. Each pie slice is divided into eight sections. The instructions explain that slides for each social identity will be displayed with eight statements that describe examples of "privilege related to that category's system of oppression and privilege." Participants are instructed to shade a section of the wheel if their answer is "basically yes" to the statement….
After doing the activity, teachers participating in the training moved into smaller breakout groups with fellow teachers. The PowerPoint instructions for the breakout group discussion ask, "How did it feel to engage in this activity?" The "Norms in Breakout Groups" are listed as: "Assume positive intentions"; "You don't have to share if you don't feel comfortable doing so"; "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!"; and "Agree to disagree respectfully." The discussion prompts listed are: "Why is it important for us to aware of privilege as an aspect of our identities/experience?"; "How did completing this activity affect my understanding of myself?"; "How did completing this activity affect my understanding of my students?"; and "How does my identity impact my relationship with my students?" Avicolli acknowledged that the breakout groups could be uncomfortable and she expected participants to be uncomfortable. She said no one was required to speak in the breakout groups.
According to Grande, he started out the discussion in his breakout group by saying to the other teachers: "I was just man-bashed and white-shamed. I'm gonna sit here quietly." He said he added: "I'm not buying into this white-bashing BS." Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement contains slightly different phrasing of Grande's statements: "I just got man bashed and white shamed, but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS." Grande asserts that his comments sparked no reaction or disruption during the breakout group meeting itself.
Grande says he made his comments to address what he viewed as discriminatory content of the presentation because he did not "think teachers should have to go through this and have their race and gender and their sexual preference, you know, targeted or pointed at." Grande viewed the presentation as an attempt to indoctrinate teachers and ultimately students, which he found objectionable. Based on the prompts, Grande believed that the presentation targeted a certain class of people, including him, and was an exercise in "critical race theory," rather than one aimed at improving the education of students.
In response to a written survey asking teachers about the presentation, Grande questioned how the training related to "art, music, or PE/health" and stated he believed the training was "part of the Superintendent's agenda to advance her career." According to Avicolli, Grande was the only person who spoke out to say the presentation was objectionable….
Following a complaint (more on the details below), Grande was investigated and disciplined (formally reprimanded, told that "future misconduct could lead to disciplinary action, including termination of employment," and required "to take a 'Sensitivity Awareness' training"). He then sued, and the court allowed his First Amendment retaliation claim to go forward.
Generally speaking, the government may not discipline an employee based on the employee's speech if
- the speech is not said by the employee as part of the employee's job duties, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), and
- the speech is on a matter of public concern, Connick v. Myers (1983), and
- the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency's operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public, Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. (1968).
Here is how the court analyzed these elements:
[1.] The parties dispute whether Grande was required to attend the training but it is undisputed that Grande was not required by his employer to speak during the breakout session. Although Grande spoke at a professional development training session purportedly related to student engagement, Grande's comments were not directed at how to engage students in his class. Rather, Grande voiced his opinion that an exercise at the training targeted teachers in a discriminatory manner based on their race and gender. Grande's criticism of a social identity exercise as discriminatory is not "'part-and-parcel of his concerns' about his ability to 'properly execute his duties'" as a teacher ….
[2.] Defendants assert that when Grande spoke in the breakout session he was airing personal grievances to other teachers rather than speaking on a matter of public concern. Grande asserts that his comments that the training exercise was "white bashing BS" and he felt "man bashed and white shamed" were directed at what he perceived as gender and race-based discrimination in the workplace and therefore matters of public concern.
"Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to matters of political, social, or general interest to the community or value and concern to the public." To identify matters of public concern, courts consider "the motive of the speaker, cognizant that speech on a purely private matter does not pertain to a matter of public concern and, conversely, that an individual motivated by a personal grievance can simultaneously speak on a matter affecting the public at large." "Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. Connick.
In Connick, the Supreme Court referred to the "right to protest racial discrimination" as "a matter inherently of public concern" regardless of whether the protest is communicated in a public or private forum. The Second Circuit has noted that it has "held repeatedly that when a public employee's speech regards the existence of discrimination in the workplace, such speech is a matter of public concern." …
[3.] Other than pointing to a single teacher's complaint, Defendants provide no argument for how Grande's speech was disruptive or potentially disruptive…. The complaining teacher said that Grande's comment made her "very uncomfortable," and was "very disturbing," "deeply affects the community" served by the Hartford Public Schools, against her "moral beliefs," and "disrespectful to the work that we are trying to start in our department." There is no question that the complaining teacher disagreed with Grande's viewpoint and was upset when she heard his comments. But "[i]n order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."
Defendants rely on Grillo v. New York City Transit Authority (2d Cir. 2002), where the Second Circuit held that an employee had not engaged in protected speech when he said at a training that certain management techniques were "women's stuff," and "women who dress like that [like the women in the building where the class was being held] should expect to be grabbed and pulled on." The Second Circuit reasoned that "even if this comment raised matters of public concern, Grillo's employer was justified in restricting his speech given the mildness of the sanction (a rebuke), the comment's tenuous connection to matters of public concern, and its significant potential for disruption." The court reasoned that "[i]n addition to its obvious provocativeness, we note that this statement advocated to future NYCTA supervisors behavior that could have subjected them and their employer to liability for violating various laws." Here, in contrast, Defendants have posited no such concerns about liability regarding Grande's comments.
Grande shared his comments in a breakout room that specifically encouraged teachers to share their thoughts and agree to disagree. The exercise appears to have been designed with the expectation that participants might feel uncomfortable, as the instructions informed participants: "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!" Indeed, the teacher who complained about Grande appears to have anticipated discomfort about the topic of the training as she thanked Avicolli for holding the session and said she was looking forward to growing in "the uncomfortable" and seeing change in the department as a result. Accordingly, the only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable.
Grande's comments were not made to students or parents at the school. Instead, Grande spoke via Zoom to a small group of teachers who worked at different schools. ECF No. 43-1, at 115-20. Grande had never had previous contact with the teacher who complained about him. Grande Dep., ECF No. 45-2, at 33. Defendants have not provided evidence that it was anticipated that Grande would work with anyone in the breakout room in the future. Accordingly, Defendants have not established based on undisputed facts that Grande's comments could be expected to disrupt his relationships with coworkers at his school or the operation of the District. Drawing all inferences and resolving all factual disputes in Grande's favor, as is required at this stage of the case, these circumstances raise questions about the reasonableness of assessing Grande's comments as disruptive to school operations.
Moreover, there is a disputed issue of fact regarding whether Grande was reprimanded based on a determination that his comments were disruptive or based on his speech itself…. The record suggests a range of possible reasons for Grande's discipline. It appears that Avicolli may have taken issue with the comments at least in part based on the viewpoint Grande expressed. At her deposition, Avicolli said she found Grande's comments "inappropriate" and "unprofessional" because they showed "resistance in having a growth mindset or an open perspective."
After learning of the teacher's complaint, Avicolli wrote to other teachers who had participated in the breakout room that Grande had made "inappropriate and aggressive comments" that were "unacceptable," "saddened" her, and created an "unsafe and hostile environment." Defendants say that Wilson "made the decision to discipline Plaintiff because of what he said and 'how he communicated out in the breakout room, which impacted the training session.'"
At his deposition, Wilson said that he concluded Grande used "vulgarity" in the breakout room. The reprimand letter signed by Wilson said that Grande had violated a provision of the Hartford Public School Employe Handbook by making "inappropriate and unprofessional comments." The Handbook provision referenced provides that "[e]mployee behavior that does not reflect positive social values will have a negative influence on students and fellow employees and is unacceptable." The letter stated that the misconduct finding was not based on Grande's "opinions or feelings regarding the training" but solely on the way Grande "expressed these sentiments which was inappropriate, unprofessional, and made several staff members uncomfortable."
Notably, the complaining teacher did not express discomfort over Grande saying "BS" or "bullshit." Rather, the discomfort appeared to be at least in part related to the opinion that Grande expressed. ECF No. 43-1, at 117 ("That statement deeply affects the community I serve. I cannot stand for a statement that is against my moral beliefs."). {Although Defendants point to the complaint of only one teacher as showing disruption, another teacher expressed feeling upset after the meeting. This teacher also appeared to be upset at least in part based on the viewpoint Grande expressed. ECF No. 43-1, at 118 ("He was dismissing what I was saying. I was upset after the meeting. These are important developments to further understand the discrepancy amongst us to be better educators. I felt like [ ] my opinion was shut down.").} Accordingly, there are disputed factual questions as to whether Grande was reprimanded for using "vulgarity," speaking "aggressively," or expressing an opinion that others disagreed with.
In sum, there are genuine disputes of material fact bearing on whether the assessment of the disruption caused by Grande's speech was reasonable and whether Grande was reprimanded because of a disagreement with the opinion Grande expressed rather than the disruption. See Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ("Vigilance is necessary to ensure that public employers do not use authority over employees to silence discourse … simply because superiors disagree with the content of employees' speech").
Plaintiff is represented by Logan M. Hetherington and Nathan J. McGrath (The Fairness Center) and Craig C. Fishbein (Fishbein Law Firm, LLC).
[UPDATE 9/11/25 2:41 pm: I originally erroneously said "Avicolli was investigated and disciplined," but of course that was mistaken; I've corrected it to make clear that it was Grande who was investigated and disciplined. Thanks to commenter Lee Moore and to Jordan Brown for the correction.]