Spengler v. Cooperative Educational Service Agency 7
1:22-cv-01199
E.D. Wis.Aug 4, 2025Background
- Becky Spengler, a white woman, was employed as Integration Director at CESA 7 and participated in state-sponsored special education programs (RSN and RPIC) funded and guided by the Wisconsin DPI.
- DPI's special education programs emphasized advancing "educational equity" and adopted materials and philosophies Spengler believed to be rooted in critical race theory (CRT), which she personally opposed.
- Spengler claimed she faced adverse employment actions, a hostile work environment, and retaliation because she opposed these "race-based" program directives and refused to personally endorse them.
- She brought suit under Title VI and Title VII (alleging racial discrimination and retaliation), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment and Equal Protection claims), and against both CESA 7 and DPI.
- The case reached summary judgment after significant factual discovery, with Spengler remaining employed by CESA 7 in another role after losing her Integration Director position, until her termination nearly two years later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VI/VII discrimination | Spengler was demoted/retaliated against for refusing to adopt "racist" CRT ideology promoted by DPI | Adverse action was based on disagreement with DPI policy, not her race; CRT is not actionable discrimination under Title VI/VII | Adoption of CRT is not grounds for a Title VI/VII violation; action was due to ideological conflict, not racial discrimination |
| Title VI/VII retaliation | Spengler was retaliated against for opposing what she viewed as unlawful, race-based employment requirements | No protected opposition to an unlawful practice; conduct addressed policy disagreement, not protected activity | No retaliation under Title VI/VII; there was no evidence her complaints were opposition to unlawful practice |
| FMLA interference | CESA 7 wrongfully required excessive medical examinations, interfering with her statutory leave rights | Employer had honest suspicion regarding validity of certification and followed statutorily-permitted process | No FMLA interference; CESA 7 followed required procedures |
| First Amendment retaliation/compelled speech | Spengler was penalized for refusing to endorse and for criticizing DPI's race-related philosophy, in violation of her free speech rights | Plaintiff spoke as a public employee pursuant to official duties, not as a private citizen; compelled speech claim unfounded as she did not engage in proscribed speech | No First Amendment violation; plaintiff’s speech and refusal were within scope of job duties, not protected by the First Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (sets standard for proving causal link between discrimination and employment action)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employees’ speech is not protected if made pursuant to official duties)
- Castetter v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 953 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2020) (standard for summary judgment: evidence construed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Johnson v. Advocate Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2018) (role of court in summary judgment is to assess material fact disputes)
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (purpose of 14th Amendment is to eliminate official racial discrimination)
- Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009) (public employee retaliation standard under First Amendment)
- Renken v. Gregory, 541 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2008) (scope of public employee speech protected by First Amendment)
- Callahan v. Fermon, 526 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2008) (employee speech not protected when made as part of official duties)
- Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000) (government speech doctrine)