A teacher fired for TikTok posts opposing the movement to change genders has lost her free speech appeal. A court ruled on June 28 that school district officials correctly predicted the posts would lead to substantial disruption if the teacher were retained.
Kari MacRae made six allegedly controversial posts on her personal TikTok account, including a disparaging post referring to a federal official who is a male but presents as a woman.
Ms. MacRae was hired several months later, on Aug. 25, 2021, by Hanover Public Schools in Massachusetts as a high school teacher. After hiring Ms. McRae, school and district officials learned about the posts. They fired her on Sept. 29, 2021.
“I have determined that continuing your employment in light of your social media posts would have a significant impact on student learning,” Matthew Mattos, the principal at Hanover High School, wrote at the time.
Ms. MacRae sued school officials, alleging they violated her First Amendment rights.
“Plaintiff’s social media posts did not cause any disruptions in the classroom. Nor did defendant Mattos inform plaintiff that any disruptions occurred,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff’s interest in speaking out as a citizen and candidate about matters of public concern outweighs any interest defendants may have had in promoting the efficiency of the educational and other services Hanover Public Schools provides,” it added later.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in 2023 ruled against Ms. MacRae. School officials “have adduced ample evidence of the potential for disruption to student learning and to the District’s mission which adequately justified MacRae’s termination,” she said in the ruling.
In the new decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed.
While teachers hold First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that government employers “need a significant degree of control over their employees’ words and actions” and that public employees like teachers “by necessity must accept certain limitations on [their] freedom.” Justices have outlined a test to apply in cases such as the one brought by Ms. MacRae.
Under the test, courts consider whether the First Amendment interest of an employee outweighs the interest of government defendants. The government can offer evidence of disruption that occurred, or evidence that disruption is likely in the future.
“We struggle to see how defendants’ prediction of disruption was anything but reasonable” in light of the evidence, the appeals court panel stated.
In the decision, the panel noted that Ms. MacRae has never apologized for the posts. She also said during a deposition she still holds the views she offered in the posts. That means her First Amendment interest weighs less than normal because the posts “comment upon such hot-button political issues in a mocking, derogatory, and disparaging manner,” according to the ruling.
Ms. MacRae had argued that because the TikTok posts were made before she was hired, a different test—which does not include any acknowledgment of government interest—should be applied.
The appeals court rejected that position.
“We see no reason (and MacRae has provided none) why the government’s interest in the efficient provision of public services would simply evaporate into thin air just because the speech in question occurred prior to the start of employment and the employer did not learn of the purported disruptive speech until after the employee began working for it,” Judge Thompson said.
