First Cir. Ponders Teacher’s Speech Suit Over Pronoun Disclosure

A Massachusetts teacher who was fired after disclosing a student’s new preferred name and pronouns to their parents urged the First Circuit to revive her First Amendment suit against school officials.

“Don’t the parents have a right to know what’s happening to their daughter who may be gender transitioning?” Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí asked counsel for the town of Ludlow, Mass., and school officials during arguments Monday at the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

David Lawless, representing Ludlow and Paul R. Baird Middle School officials, said the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta only addressed claims brought by parents. The school in this case followed state guidance protecting the privacy rights of students and Ludlow’s policy not to notify parents when a student starts using new pronouns at school, Lawless argued, which was upheld by the First Circuit last year.

But Ryan McLane, who represents Manchester, argued Monday that the school officials were following an unwritten policy because they didn’t follow the relevant guidance from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The guidance only waives parental rights when the student is at least 14-years-old or in ninth grade, neither of which apply here, McLane said.

But Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson questioned what allegations or indicators are included in the complaint to support Manchester’s assertion that there was “enforcement of this so-called unwritten policy.”

McLane responded that it underscores the need for discovery in the case, to which Thompson said “there has to be a plausible allegation based on some factual assertions” that there’s an unwritten policy to survive dismissal.

Although McLane argued there were “several” cited in the brief, he told the court “I don’t recall them right here.”

Lawless, with Robinson Donovan PC, argued there were no facts alleged supporting an unwritten policy, or that it was applied in any other scenario.

Judge Joshua D. Dunlap questioned “what would be enough” for a plaintiff to allege to get discovery on an unwritten policy like the one at issue here.

“You do have to actually plead, factually, the existence of a custom,” Lawless said. That can be done through things like public records requests, Lawless argued, but here “there are no facts pled to support the existence of a custom.”

One of Manchester’s 11-year-old students sent an email to their teachers stating their preferred pronouns and that they would like to be addressed by a new masculine name. Manchester disclosed the information to the student’s father outside the school after hours.

Manchester was fired for sharing sensitive confidential information about the student’s gender identity and lying during the school’s investigation, Baird school officials said, violating DESE guidance. School officials also said Manchester violated state law and regulations regarding student privacy, as well as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

But Manchester argued in a brief that school officials’ actions “were textbook examples of impermissible content and viewpoint discrimination.”

Although the district court was correct to conclude Manchester sufficiently alleged she was speaking as a private citizen about a matter of public concern, it erred by speculating about the harm and disruption to the school district’s interests “without any factual support,” Manchester asserted.

But Lawless asserted Monday that “one child’s gender identity is not a matter of public concern.” Although parts of Manchester’s speech with the student’s father could be considered a matter of public concern, the individual student’s gender identity is not, Lawless said.

“But it seems like that’s intertwined with the speech involving public concern, how do you disentangle that?” Thompson questioned.

They’re clearly related topics, Lawless said, but he argued that one child’s gender identity is no more a matter of public concern than their grades in class.

But here, Gelpí said, Manchester wasn’t going to the media or the public, but raised “an issue of public concern, but to the only people” she could—the parents.

Lawless countered that Manchester was fired for talking to the parents after receiving specific instructions not to. And she can be fired over it if she was speaking in her capacity as a teacher.

“It’s maybe distasteful, but it doesn’t violate the Constitution,” Lawless said.

McNamara & Associates and Child & Parental Rights Campaign Inc. also represent Manchester.

The case is Manchester v. Town of Ludlow, 1st Cir., No. 25-01502, oral argument 4/6/26.