Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Teachers’ Lawsuit Over Pride Flags in Classrooms

Fellow Editors
10 hours ago
3 min read

The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case Dolce v. Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist brought by three Connetquot High School teachers. They argued the school district violated their constitutional and civil rights by telling them to remove pride flags and stickers from their classrooms. The August 31, 2026 ruling clarifies how Garcetti v. Ceballos applies to classroom displays and reinforces limits on public employees' speech in K–12 schools.

Background of the Dispute

The plaintiffs, Christopher Dolce, Sarah Ecke, and Shinaide McAleavey-Polley, are teachers who are openly part of the LGBTQ community. For several years, Mrs. Ecke displayed two large pride flags in her math classroom, including a progress pride flag that was much larger than the American flag beside it. Some students began to feel uncomfortable, so the district told her to remove the flag and instead display a sign that read: It's a place where you can be yourself.

When the teachers raised their concerns with the Board of Education, the district cited Policy 1310. This policy bans 'political practices' on school grounds and only permits the American and New York State flags in classrooms. Later, a student covered the Pride stickers on Dolce’s and McAleavey-Polley’s doors with American flag stickers. After this, the principal banned all flag stickers from classroom doors and windows.

The teachers argued that the district enforced its policy selectively. They pointed to other flags, such as a French flag in a language classroom, sports banners, flags painted in the parking lot, and stickers for groups like Students Against Drunk Driving.

The Lawsuit

The teachers sued under:

First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination)
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
Title VII and Title IX
New York State and Suffolk County Human Rights Laws

The district court dismissed all the claims, and the teachers appealed the decision.

Key Holding: Classroom Decorations Are Government Speech

The Second Circuit agreed with the dismissal but gave a different reason than the district court for the First Amendment claim.

The court decided that classroom wall displays are part of a teacher's official duties and are therefore covered by the decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Since it is the teachers' responsibility to set up the learning environment in the classroom, the decorations 'exist' because of their professional obligations and are therefore considered government speech rather than private speech.

The opinion explains:

As part of their responsibilities, teachers decorate the walls of their classrooms in order to create physical learning environments suitable for the curriculum they have been assigned to teach.

Because these displays are considered government speech, the district can regulate or restrict them without violating the First Amendment, even if teachers see the flags as personal expression.

The court also clarified that Garcetti does not apply to personal items like a pride pin on a blazer or a photo of a same-sex spouse, since these items are not part of a teacher's official duties.

Equal Protection Claim Fails for Lack of Evidence of Animus

The teachers argued that the district targeted LGBTQ expression out of discrimination, but the court disagreed. It found their claims were speculative and not supported by facts.

The opinion states that when the officials asked Ecke to take down the pride flag, they instead provided a supportive sign. Superintendent Adams stressed that all students "are entitled to a school environment in which they feel safe, comfortable, and respected, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Based on these facts, the court found there was no reasonable claim of anti-LGBTQ intent.

Title VII Claim Fails: No Adverse Employment Action

The teachers saw the instructions about the flag and sticker as employment discrimination. Even under the Supreme Court's recent Muldrow standard, which only requires 'some injury,' the court found they had not faced any adverse employment action.

Their salaries, duties, work hours, and responsibilities stayed the same. Being asked to remove the flags or change the permission slip did not affect any 'identifiable term or condition of employment.'

State and Local Claims Properly Dismissed

The district court was allowed to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state and local claims because all the federal claims had been dismissed.

No Leave to Amend

The teachers did not ask for permission to amend their claims or explain how they would fix the issues. The Second Circuit's ruling confirms that classroom decorations in elementary and secondary schools are part of a teacher's official duties and are considered government speech under district control. The teachers' constitutional and statutory claims cannot move forward without proof of discrimination or employment harm.

The Eastern District of New York's judgment was fully affirmed.

Fellows & Editors

To stay informed, sign up to the Delmarva Parent Teacher Coalition and follow us on facebook to know what's really happening with education in our schools.