This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court has ruled that a $300,000 punishment for two school employees who complained about being ordered into "equity training" is unjustified.
"Americans should know that they have the freedom to file civil rights' litigation to vindicate their constitutional rights without fear of reprisal. No American should face crushing attorney's fees awards for merely attempting to hold government officials accountable. The risk of bearing those fees will discourage victims from seeking justice—justice they would not have had to seek had the government not violated their rights. The 8th Circuit's decision protects every American's right to pursue legal action to vindicate their fundamental freedoms."
That's a comment from Mathew Hoffman, of the ADF, which was among a long list of legal teams working to oppose the punishment imposed by a district court against two employees of the Springfield Public Schools in Missouri.
They had sued over being ordered into diversity and inclusion training they said violated their constitutional rights.
A lower court dismissed their case, and then demanded that they pay $300,000 in legal fees.
A decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, "The plaintiffs alleged during the training, the defendants compelled them to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on the ground that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and thus lacked standing to sue. The court also found that the lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the school district. The plaintiffs appeal. Because we agree that the plaintiffs did not establish an injury in fact, we affirm the dismissal. We conclude, however, that the fee award was unwarranted and reverse that portion of the judgment."
The court ruling noted: "The school district provided in-person and virtual training. At the in-person training, school officials instructed the attendees on how to become 'Anti-Racist educators, leaders and staff members.' The district defined 'anti-racism' as 'the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life.' The presenters cautioned that actions like practicing color-blindness and remaining silent about racism perpetuated white supremacy."
In fact, the indoctrination included statements including: "We want to stress that we are not calling you as an individual a white supremacist. That being said, certain actions or statements . . . can support that structural system of white supremacy."
The presenters also displayed an "Oppression Matrix" that categorized various social groups as a privileged, oppressed, or border group. For example, within the category of race, the matrix identified white people as a privileged social group, biracial people as a border group, and Asian, Latina/o, black, and native people as oppressed social groups. At the virtual training, the school district provided similar instruction," the ruling said.
When the fight over the legal fees arose, WND reported the chilling effect on speech was so significant that even the staunchly leftist American Civil Liberties Union joined a long list of conservatives in support of two teachers who challenged the "antiracism" indoctrination.
The concern was that the lower court judge's attack on the two teachers would send the chilling message not to challenge such ideologies ever.
The teachers are Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley. They challenged the indoctrination plan by the Springfield Public Schools.
The advocates argued, "Uncritically awarding government officials hundreds of thousands of dollars defeats the purpose of our fundamental civil rights statutes."
The district, in fact, ordered the teachers to "write down what they will do to adopt antiracism … akin to an ideological loyalty oath," court records show. The school had conceded it forced the teachers to attend the training, and then refused to give them credit unless they chose answers that violated their own beliefs.
