Friedmann v. Franklin Pierce Public Schools, 3:22-cv-06010

Michael Friedmann, a Latino, male, and self-identified disabled substitute teacher, was employed by Franklin Pierce Public Schools in Washington and replaced classroom teacher Jayne Marshall for two days in March 2022.
After his assignment, the classroom teacher and parents sent complaints to the school administration alleging unprofessional conduct and use of inappropriate language, as well as allegedly racially insensitive comments.
The school investigated complaints per policy, temporarily suspended Friedmann’s ability to take assignments while hearing his perspective, and later permanently removed him due to further conduct complaints.
Friedmann did not challenge his removal from the substitute list but brought suit against the district, Marshall, and another administrator, alleging discrimination (based on race, gender, disability, religion), defamation, and constitutional violations (First and Fourth Amendments).
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Friedmann also filed motions to strike and for sanctions, all of which are addressed in this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title VII/ADA Discrimination	Friedmann claims discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and tattoos.	No evidence of adverse action connected to protected class status; investigation and removal were for misconduct.	No prima facie case; no evidence of discrimination or pretext; summary judgment for defendants.
Defamation	Defendants, especially Marshall, defamed him via complaints about conduct and tattoos.	Statements were privileged workplace communications; no evidence of falsity, negligence, or malice.	Statements privileged, no malice or damages shown; summary judgment for defendants.
First Amendment	His speech/expression (tattoos, religion, attire) were protected and targeted by defendants.	No restriction or adverse action for speech; actions taken for professional misconduct, not viewpoint discrimination/retaliation.	No constitutional violation; no protected speech or adverse action; claims dismissed.
Fourth Amendment	Required to show tattoos ("forced to strip") amounted to unconstitutional search.	Displaying tattoos did not constitute a search; no individual personally participated in deprivation of rights.	No personal participation or search; claim is factually and legally insufficient; dismissed.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard—no weighing of evidence or credibility at this stage)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment to be granted when nonmoving party fails to make a showing of an essential element)
Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff's burden to show pretext in discrimination claims)
Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (public employee speech not protected unless on a matter of public concern)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires showing a policy or custom caused the violation)