In a major win for the free speech rights of public school educators, Grants Pass School District No. 7 will admit that they wrongfully terminated Rachel Sager and Katie Medart and pay $650,000 in damages and legal fees.
[UPDATE] An Oregon school district has agreed to pay $650,000 and issue formal apologies after two teachers won a major free speech settlement over their public comments on gender identity education policy.
The settlement ends a multi-year legal battle between Grants Pass School District 7 and former North Middle School educators Rachel Sager and Katie Medart. Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Pacific Justice Institute represented their case, arguing that district officials violated their First Amendment rights and punished them for expressing views on matters of public concern.
As part of the agreement, the district will pay the aforementioned $650,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees, issue a public statement acknowledging that the terminations were improper, revise its policy to comply with constitutional free speech protections, remove negative references from both women’s personnel files, and provide positive letters of recommendation.
“Educators are free to express opinions on fundamental issues of public concern—like gender identity education policy—that implicate the freedoms of teachers, parents, and students,” said Matthew Hoffman, legal counsel for ADF. “The Grants Pass School District is taking the right step by acknowledging that teachers don’t give up their First Amendment rights when they set foot on school property. Public schools can’t retaliate against speech simply because they disagree with what’s said.”
The dispute began in 2021, when Sager, then an assistant principal, and Medart, a veteran science teacher, publicly discussed policy proposals regarding gender identity guidance in Oregon schools. Their comments were part of their work with “I Resolve,” an effort the two launched to advocate for gender identity policies they said would respect the rights of students, parents, and staff.
After the two educators posted a video outlining their policy recommendations, district officials suspended both educators and later fired them. Sager and Medart filed suit, alleging that the dismissals violated their protected speech rights.
In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the educators’ claims, partially vacating a lower court ruling that had sided with the district and sending the case back for trial. The appellate panel found that a jury should determine whether Sager and Medart were punished for speech made as private citizens on issues of public concern.
Rather than continue toward trial, the district agreed to settle, signaling a major shift in its handling of the case.
Sager and Medart, who each spent years serving students in Grants Pass, said their advocacy began out of concern for how emerging gender identity policies would affect classroom practice and communication between schools and families.
With the settlement now in place, the educators say they hope the outcome will help ensure teachers do not face professional retaliation for participating in public discussions that shape policies.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
{Published June 20, 2025} A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit brought by two former employees of Grants Pass School District 7 challenging their termination for off-duty speech can proceed to trial.
The ruling revives their claims that the district violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it fired them after they publicly voiced concerns about the school’s gender identity policies.
Top of Form
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a lower court’s summary judgment decision when it remanded constitutional claims brought by plaintiffs Rachel Sager and Katie Medart for further proceedings, finding that genuine disputes exist over whether the school district improperly punished the educators for expressing their views.
Sager, an assistant principal, and Medart, a middle school science and health teacher, say they used personal time and devices to launch “I Resolve,” a grassroots campaign that featured a YouTube video and website. The initiative offered “reasonable, loving, and tolerant solutions” that would best care for students while “respecting the fundamental freedoms of parents and teachers.”
Their decision to do this came after the school adopted policies in 2020 telling teachers to use the preferred names and pronouns of any transgender student who asked, “even if that conflicted with our belief or the belief of the student’s parents,” Sager explained.
The project was done in accordance with district policy and never mentioned the school’s name. Although unrelated to their official duties, their project quickly came under attack as “anti-trans,” and a number of people complained, including staff members, students, and even some who had no connection to the school.
School officials then claimed that the project disrupted the work environment and conflicted with district values, resulting in the educators’ suspension and termination in 2021.
In March 2024, a U.S. district judge granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment, meaning that there was no need for a trial as he had already decided that the school’s educational mission and climate outweighed any First Amendment protections. The judge also determined that school officials were protected by qualified immunity.
However, the appellate panel disagreed on key legal issues. It held that summary judgment was inappropriate because there is conflicting evidence over whether the educators’ speech caused significant disruption and whether district officials acted to silence dissenting viewpoints beyond acceptable bounds.
According to the judges, school officials may defend their decision to fire the two educators by showing evidence of disruption or workplace interference, but that defense fails when disputed facts cloud whether the disruption was substantial or reasonably predicted.
The court ruled that differing accounts of any actual disruption, combined with evidence showing the speech happened off campus and on personal time, make it impossible to rule in the school district’s favor at this point.
The ruling also revived claims that the district punished the educators for dissenting views grounded in religious or scientific perspectives while permitting others with opposing views to keep their jobs. The court stated that such alleged unequal treatment requires further examination, noting disputes over whether the speech was selectively targeted.
The panel also reinstated the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, alleging they were treated differently because of their viewpoint. It revived a challenge to district speech policies that might unlawfully restrict teachers’ expression. The court further allowed a Title VII claim based on religious discrimination to proceed, citing unresolved questions about whether the educators were fired for their faith-based beliefs about gender.
While the court allowed most constitutional claims to proceed, it did uphold qualified immunity for individual district officials on certain issues, thereby shielding them from personal liability.
Sager and Medart say the video was filmed outside school hours on personal devices and presented a balanced, reasoned case with no intent to disrupt. They emphasized that they did not address specific students or use school email to distribute it, although Sager did email the video link to district staff. The district has argued the video undermined staff cohesion and disrupted the student environment.
Legal groups representing the educators say the court’s decision reaffirms fundamental speech rights for public employees. Multiple advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the panel to protect educators from being fired for off-duty political speech.
“Educators are free to express opinions on fundamental issues of public concern—like gender identity education policy—that implicate the freedoms of teachers, parents, and students,” said Matthew Hoffman, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the two educators. “The court affirmed that educators don’t give up their First Amendment rights just because they work behind the schoolhouse gate, and public schools can’t retaliate against speech simply because they disagree with what’s said.”
Because the case returns to the district court, Sager and Medart will now have the opportunity to present evidence showing that workplace disruption was minimal or that the school selectively punished them for their viewpoints.
If they succeed, they could win damages, reinstatement, or policy changes. The district is likely to argue it acted within its rights as an employer and that protecting school harmony justified the terminations.
Off-duty speech on matters of public concern carries high First Amendment protection and only severe disruption or insubordination among staff can override it. Courts have repeatedly struck down efforts to police educators’ private speech on gender identity, race, or politics.
The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon for further proceedings. A trial date has not yet been set, but legal observers say the outcome could influence similar cases nationwide.
Unless the district can show actual, serious disruption, it cannot override constitutional rights. Sager and Medart say they remain hopeful that their case will restore protections for teachers of all beliefs who choose to speak out on public matters outside of work.
If Sager and Medart caused any disharmony among staff and students, it is only because like too many public schools these days, Grants Pass District 7 dogmatically subscribes to the secular orthodoxy that sex is non-binary and gender is a spectrum. Its policies now follow this dogma, strongly “suggesting” that teachers use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns and allowing students to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, not their biological sex.
This viewpoint does not tolerate anyone holding to the biblical and biological principle that there are just two sexes — male and female.
Firing employees for having differing opinions and beliefs on the issue of sex and gender is not just a violation of the right to free speech but comes very close to establishing a government-sanctioned religion.
Sager and Medart should be commended for standing up for their beliefs despite living in a culture that is increasingly hostile to biological truth and the Christian faith. As believers, we are all called to stand firm even when that truth is unpopular or comes with personal cost.
Sager and Medart took that calling seriously when they used their personal time to advocate for policies that align with their deeply held beliefs about gender, human identity, and God’s design. They did not attack or demean others but instead proposed respectful, faith-informed solutions to public education policies. Their actions demonstrate how Christians can engage with compassion and conviction in matters of public concern.
The fact that their employment was terminated over off-duty speech rooted in religious belief should concern every person of faith. Religious freedom doesn’t end at the schoolhouse door or after hours. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech that challenges cultural norms, especially when grounded in sincere moral or religious conviction.
Jesus reminded His followers in John 15:18, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” The road of discipleship is not always easy, but we are challenged to take courage knowing Christ has overcome the world (John 16:33).
This case should inspire Christians to remain faithful and courageous, trusting God even when institutions or authorities push back. We must also support those who are willing to risk their careers to honor their convictions. When we defend that liberty, we preserve space for the truth of God’s Word to be proclaimed freely and boldly in every area of life.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
