Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Mary Kay Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools, et al.
Date: 08-27-2025
Case Number: 0:21-cv-02581
Judge: Patrick J. Schiltz
Court: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Hennepin County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Minneapolis Employment Law Lawyer Directory
Thomas was employed by the District for nearly 30 years, beginning as a
teacher and then as the middle school principal for 15 years. In December 2019,
Thomas decided to implement an "inclusion project.†As part of the project, she
used District funds to create a flag display in a common area of the school. On behalf
of the District, she purchased approximately 30 flags—including a Pride flag. The
flags were placed by school staff.
Following the flag placement, Thomas emailed school staff informing them
that the inclusion project was part of her "personal/professional goals.†In the email,
Thomas also disclosed that she was establishing a new task force specifically
focused on inclusion. Controversy arose almost immediately when some staff and
community members objected to the inclusion of the Pride flag in the display. When
some teachers expressed concern that Thomas was inappropriately "pushingâ€
LGBTQ+ issues that they felt unprepared to discuss with middle schoolers, the then
School Board Chair, Jeff Chapman, asked Thomas to remove the Pride flag.
District Superintendent Scott Monson initially supported the decision to
remove the Pride flag, but he quickly reversed his position once he consulted with
the District's legal counsel. When the issue was presented to the School Board, the
Board decided to allow the flag display to remain. During this time, Thomas
continued to show support for LGBTQ+ students by hanging signs, giving the staff
Pride "ally†stickers to display, and confiscating a student petition seeking to have
the Pride flag removed.
On June 1, 2020, while the schools were operating remotely due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Board met in a closed session with its legal counsel.
Following that meeting, the Board adopted a statement reaffirming its decision that
displaying the Pride flag was consistent with District policy and it could remain
displayed when classes resumed in the fall. Every Board member except Chapman
voted in favor of the reaffirmation. Superintendent Monson resigned at the end of
the 2019–2020 academic year and Jeremy Williams succeeded him.
When in-person classes resumed, Thomas helped create a new student
organization, the Gay-Straight Alliance ("GSAâ€), guiding students through the
District's official process for approving a new club. A group of staff reported to
Superintendent Williams that Thomas sent an email to them directing them to
promote the GSA to students regardless of their personal beliefs. Numerous staff
members also expressed their opinions that Thomas had adopted a "divisiveâ€
leadership style, her conduct had created a negative workplace, and she was
improperly pressuring others to endorse LGBTQ+ advocacy.
In December 2020 and again in February 2021, Superintendent Williams
asked Thomas to consider a reassignment from the principal position to a different
role within the District to ward off a formal investigation. Thomas declined and
shortly thereafter sought supporters—both inside and outside the District—seeking
letters of support directed to Superintendent Williams and the Board praising her
record and supporting her against the allegations made by the discontented teachers.
At a closed Board meeting on March 1, 2021, Superintendent Williams
informed the Board of staff complaints, noting that most were general complaints of-4-
a divided culture and accusations of unprofessional leadership. The Board decided
to retain an outside law firm to conduct a formal investigation, and placed Thomas
on paid administrative leave. While the investigation was ongoing, Thomas filed a
discrimination charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. During
this entire time, some outside community members continued to press the Board to
remove the Pride flag or include opposing viewpoint flags such as a "Straight Prideâ€
flag and other flags referencing religious or ideological positions.
In May 2021, the investigator's report concluded that Thomas's conduct
contributed to staff discontentment and created "a negative, divided, and
uncomfortable work environment.†The report further found that Thomas had
"violated the common-sense expectations of professionalism and ethics generally
placed on public school administrators.†In response to the report, the District
offered Thomas a severance package, but she refused the offer. In June 2021,
Williams suspended Thomas for a week without pay, removed her as principal, and
reassigned her to the position of "Coordinator of Special Projects.†The Board
ratified this decision, including the new job assignment. The District also notified
Thomas that she was suspended due to leadership difficulties with school staff.
Thomas commenced this action alleging state claims based on reprisal for
associating with members of the LGBTQ+ community and for rejecting sexual
advances, and federal claims premised on associational sex discrimination and
retaliation. Following cross-summary judgment motions, the district court found
Thomas had engaged in government speech, which was not protected by the First
Amendment.
evidence to show any speech she made as a private person was a substantial or
motivating factor in the District’s decision to take adverse action against her. The
district court dismissed Thomas’s federal claims with prejudice and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, dismissing them
without prejudice.
Affirmed
About This Case
What was the outcome of Mary Kay Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools, et al.?
The outcome was: The district court further found that Thomas did not present sufficient evidence to show any speech she made as a private person was a substantial or motivating factor in the District’s decision to take adverse action against her. The district court dismissed Thomas’s federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Affirmed
Which court heard Mary Kay Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools, et al.?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Hennepin County), MN. The presiding judge was Patrick J. Schiltz.
Who were the attorneys in Mary Kay Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools, et al.?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Minneapolis Employment Law Lawyer Directory.
When was Mary Kay Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools, et al. decided?
This case was decided on August 27, 2025.