He kept the books after a partial win - then lost his job over them
A school employee decorated his office with contested books. His employer told him to stop - and a US appeals court agreed it could.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 21, 2026, that an Oregon education agency did not violate an employee's free speech rights when it barred him from displaying certain books at work. The court affirmed a lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction.
The employee, an education specialist, had spent more than 15 years in the InterMountain Education Service District. He kept offices where students came for evaluations, and decorated them with personal items - including three children's books.
After a complaint in October 2024, the district investigated and concluded the displays were a "bias incident" under its "Every Student Belongs" policy, which it defined as a "hostile expression of animus" based on a protected characteristic. It ordered him to stop showing the books at work, warning that noncompliance "could result in discipline, including termination."
He sued under a federal civil rights law, arguing the order violated his free speech rights. A trial court split the difference, letting him show the books only when no students were present. After he resumed the displays and, in at least one instance, discussed the books' content with students, the district opened a second investigation and later terminated him.
On appeal, the court did not decide whether the books were offensive. It asked a narrower question: was the worker speaking as a private citizen or as part of his job? Applying the Supreme Court's Garcetti framework, the panel found the speech "owe[d] its existence" to his role. Because it occurred in student-facing offices during his duties, it fell "outside the First Amendment's ambit."
The panel set the case apart from the 2022 court’s ruling on a coach's private prayer, noting the worker here was "engaged in his core professional responsibilities," not in a personal moment "detached from his role."
One judge dissented sharply. He noted the district let staff display pride flags, Black Lives Matter posters and political endorsements, while treating one viewpoint as "hostile." That, the dissent argued, opened the door to viewpoint discrimination.
For HR, the ruling reinforces that a public employer can restrict staff expression tied to job duties. But the dissent's warning about enforcing a policy unevenly is the part worth watching.
The decision addressed a preliminary injunction, not the final merits, and the underlying case continues.
