The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Grande v. Hartford Board of Education et al
Overview
Grande, a teacher, sued the school board claiming that he was unfairly disciplined because he spoke out against a board presentation on white privilege and against the Board’s use of resources to advance “critical race theory.”
Details
The Board argues that all employment decisions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and reasonable business reasons.
On February 5, 2025, the Board filed for summary judgment, arguing that they should win the case as a matter of law, without going to trial. To prove that the school board retaliated against him for exercising his right to free speech, Grande needed to show that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The Board contends that Grande's comments were not protected because they were not made "as a private citizen on a matter of public concern" but were personal grievances about the District's training, expressed as part of his duties as a teacher. The Board also claims it had a legitimate reason to limit this speech and that Grande’s claim that the Board forced him to support critical race theory is incorrect. The Board maintains that everyone at the presentation was told they were not required to speak.
On March 5, 2025, Grande opposed the Board's motion for summary judgment. Grande argued that the motion was improper because there were facts in dispute and that the facts he put forward were sufficient to prove his First Amendment claims. Specifically, Grande asserts that the evidence submitted establishes that he "spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern" and in response to his speech, which criticized the training, Defendant disciplined him and forced him to not speak on the topic due to his differing viewpoint.
Court
U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
Status
Filed January 03, 2024 | Ongoing
Relevant Law
First Amendment