Plaintiff, former Dean of Students at Campus Middle School in Cherry Creek School District, claims Defendants violated his free speech rights by firing him for disagreeing with the content of DEI training.

On December 13, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff's comments during the DEI training was made in his capacity as a public employee, and it was "pursuant to his official duties." In such a circumstance, the comments are not protected by the First Amendment. Defendants also asserted that Plaintiff's comments during the training and complaints about confidentiality were not matters of public concern, which is also a requirement to trigger free speech protections in this case. Additionally, Defendants argued that the school district's interest in an inclusive education outweighed Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff failed to allege that his speech was the motivating factor in his termination.

On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion to dismiss and asserted that the standard for public employees used by Defendants to determine a First Amendment violation did not apply to this case. Instead, Plaintiff argued that to evaluate his claim, the court should ask whether the complaint clearly offered facts to show that the government forced him to say something he disagreed with.

On July 8, 2025, a magistrate judge recommended that the court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since Plaintiff failed to plead a constitutional violation against them. The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff's comments and participation in the training were made in his capacity as a public employee, and not as a private citizen. As a result, Defendant's did not violate Plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The magistrate judge pressed that even if Plaintiff's speech wasn't made in his capacity as a public employee, it still would not be protected by the First Amendment because it does not address a matter of public concern. Matters of public concern are "those of interest to the community, whether for social, political, or other reasons." However, matters that are "internal in scope and personal in nature" are not of public concern. Based on the content, form, and context of the conversation that took place during the training, the magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff's speech was not a matter of public concern.

On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

On September 30, 2025, the District Court judge adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the case. On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff submitted his notice to appeal this case to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.