Thompson v. Central Valley School District No. 365: Political Speech and Predicted Workplace Disruption

Case Overview and Procedural Background

In Thompson v. Central Valley School District No. 365, No. 24-5263 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025), available from the official Ninth Circuit opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the constitutional boundary between a public school administrator's off-duty political expression and a school district's operational interest in maintaining an inclusive educational environment. The decision affirms summary judgment in favor of Central Valley School District No. 365 and individual school administrators, confirming that a public employer may reassign a supervisor when off-duty speech containing disability slurs and violent rhetoric generates a reasonable prediction of workplace disruption.

The plaintiff, Randey Thompson, served as an assistant principal at Evergreen Middle School within the Central Valley School District in Washington State. Following a national political convention in August 2020, Thompson posted a lengthy comment on his personal Facebook account using his private device while off duty. Although Thompson intended the post for his personal social network, a district employee viewed the text on her feed, captured a screenshot, and forwarded it through administrative channels until it reached the district superintendent. Thompson, slip op. at 5–6.

The district immediately placed Thompson on paid administrative leave, restricted his access to school grounds, and directed him not to contact district personnel, students, or parents. Following an independent investigation and impact interviews, the superintendent issued a notice transferring Thompson to a non-administrative teaching position. Thompson challenged the transfer through statutory board proceedings under Washington Revised Code Section 28A.405.230, and the school board upheld the reassignment. Thompson then filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation. After an earlier interlocutory appeal regarding qualified immunity, the district court granted summary judgment for the district and individual administrators. Thompson appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Thompson, slip op. at 6–10.

Factual Record and District Investigation

The factual record established that Thompson's Facebook post combined political commentary regarding the national convention with explicit epithets, disability-focused slurs, derogatory references to political movements, and metaphors referring to taking individuals to the woodshed for re-education. Upon learning of the post, Assistant Superintendent Jay Rowell contacted Thompson, who confirmed authorship but maintained that the commentary was private political speech directed exclusively to like-minded acquaintances. Thompson deleted the post immediately following the call. Thompson, slip op. at 5–6.

The district engaged independent legal counsel to conduct a formal workplace investigation. Outside counsel interviewed school staff members, who expressed alarm over the language, specifically noting that disability-related slurs were harmful to students, families, and the broader community. The investigation expanded when administrators reported prior in-school comments made by Thompson, including referring to students as snowflakes or Tide Pod challenge participants, using derogatory labels when referencing special education students, and making insensitive inquiries to Black students during a school focus group. Thompson, slip op. at 6–7.

The district also conducted impact interviews with school board members, administrators, teachers, and parents. These interviews documented widespread concern regarding Thompson's capacity to serve as a fair student disciplinarian, staff evaluator, and public representative of the district. During subsequent notice-and-opportunity meetings, Thompson initially claimed his social media account had been hacked. A forensic examination revealed no evidence of unauthorized access and noted that Thompson had deleted emails, wiped personal devices, and resisted data production. The superintendent cited seven administrative grounds for the transfer, focusing on staff disharmony, conflict with the district's equity and inclusion resolutions, loss of administrative confidence, diminished effectiveness in student discipline, and compromised credibility caused by unpersuasive claims during the investigation. Thompson, slip op. at 7–9.

Legal Issues Presented Under the First Amendment

The central legal issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether the district's reassignment of an assistant principal based on off-duty social media speech violated the First Amendment under the two-step framework established in Pickering v. Board of Education. Specifically, the panel had to decide:

• Whether off-duty political commentary containing crude epithets and disability slurs constitutes speech on a matter of public concern under Pickering Step One.
• Whether placing an employee on paid administrative leave with strict access restrictions can constitute an adverse employment action.
• How crude or derogatory language impacts the constitutional weight assigned to an employee's speech interest under Pickering Step Two.
• Whether the school district demonstrated a sufficient evidentiary foundation to support a reasonable prediction of workplace disruption outweighing the employee's First Amendment interests.

Ninth Circuit Reasoning and Application of Pickering Balancing

Writing for a unanimous panel that included Circuit Judges William A. Fletcher and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould analyzed the dispute under the established two-step Pickering framework. At Step One, the panel affirmed that Thompson established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation. The court emphasized that political commentary regarding a national political convention addresses a matter of public concern. Citing established Supreme Court authority, the panel noted that inappropriate, offensive, or controversial phrasing does not strip expression of its public concern character at the threshold stage. Thompson, slip op. at 11–13.

The court assumed, without deciding, that placing Thompson on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse employment action because the severe isolation from colleagues and public exclusion could create professional stigma. Furthermore, the immediate temporal proximity between the post and the administrative leave established that the social media speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the district's initial personnel decision. Thompson, slip op. at 12–13.

However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment because the school district satisfied its burden at Pickering Step Two. The court applied a sliding scale analysis, explaining that the constitutional weight given to public employee speech varies based on its content and context. While political speech reflecting specialized workplace knowledge sits at the apex of First Amendment protection, speech containing disability slurs and violent metaphors that lacks connection to the employee's official expertise receives reduced constitutional weight. The court drew support from Fourth and Ninth Circuit persuasive precedents, noting that derogatory or hostile phrasing weakens the employee's speech interest during judicial balancing. Thompson, slip op. at 14–17.

Turning to the employer's operational interests, the court held that public agencies need not demonstrate actual, completed disruption; a reasonable prediction of disruption supported by concrete evidence is sufficient. The district presented robust evidence showing that Thompson's leadership position as an assistant principal required public trust, effective student discipline, and adherence to official district commitments regarding safe and inclusive learning environments. Impact interviews confirmed that co-workers lost confidence in Thompson's leadership and feared his presence would disrupt staff harmony and community relations. Balancing Thompson's reduced speech interest against the district's strong operational interest in maintaining an effective educational environment, the court concluded that the district's reassignment was constitutionally justified. Consequently, the individual administrators were entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred. Thompson, slip op. at 17–21.

Limitations and Practical Record Consequences for Public Sector Litigants

The Ninth Circuit explicitly limited its holding, cautioning that the Pickering analysis requires a particularized inquiry into the unique factual record of each case. The decision does not establish a blanket rule that any off-duty use of slurs or controversial language automatically forfeits First Amendment protection or guarantees an employer victory. Instead, public employers must build an evidentiary foundation proving that the specific speech impairs working relationships, undermines supervisory authority, or conflicts directly with core operational responsibilities. Thompson, slip op. at 20–21.

For public employees and public agencies, this decision carries immediate record-building consequences. Employees must recognize that using hostile or derogatory language in off-duty political posts significantly reduces the legal protection afforded to their expression under federal law. The investigation’s credibility issues formed part of this record. The court did not need to decide the separate same-decision defense after concluding that the district prevailed in the speech-versus-disruption balance. For a complete understanding of how off-duty speech risks are evaluated alongside off-duty employee documentation, review our companion off-duty social media evidence guide, as well as foundational framework analyses in Connick public concern balancing and public employee pretermination procedural protections. Thompson, slip op. at 21–22.