From yesterday’s Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead in Doe v. Portland Ass’n of Teachers, Doe’s allegations encompassed several themes.
Doe, a native of Israel, maintains that his Jewish faith and ethnic background are central to his identity. He views the State of Israel as indispensable to his religious practice. Even after relocating to the United States, he keeps strong links with Israel and with family there. In the 2023–24 school year, he served as a high school mathematics teacher for Portland Public Schools (PPS).
Upon beginning his employment with PPS, he opted not to join the Portland Association of Teachers (PAT) as a dues-paying member, invoking his First Amendment right to refrain from supporting union political speech and public-sector collective bargaining. Nevertheless, because Doe is a PPS teacher, PAT remains his exclusive representative under Oregon’s Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA) and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) PAT holds with PPS….
Curricula. Doe contends that PAT works with Oregon Educators for Palestine (OEP) in its publications, including a jointly published guide titled “Teach Palestine!” The guide points readers to resources for teaching about Palestine, and it is said to encourage teachers to use classrooms to present anti-Israel viewpoints. It also supposedly contains extensive curricula guidance spanning pre-K through high school. Among the resources the guide highlights is an item called “Teaching While Muslim,” which asserts that “75 years ago, many decision-makers around the world decided to seize Palestinian land to create a country called Israel. Israel would be a country where rules were largely fair for White-skinned Jewish people,” and it urges students to create signs bearing the slogan “Free Palestine.”
The same guide also features a lesson titled “Let’s Go to Palestine,” designed for elementary students, which states that “Palestine is currently under a brutal occupation by Israel. We pray for a truly free Palestine so that the Palestinians can prosper and we can all visit openly.” Also included is “Handala’s Return,” which proclaims that “a group of bullies called Zionists wanted our land, so they took it by force and hurt many people.” The “Know Your Rights!” guide, co-published by PAT and OEP, is said to reference CBA protections that shield teachers who teach what Doe characterizes as anti-Israel perspectives.
Displays. Doe asserts that with PAT’s backing, teachers at his school wore apparel bearing pro-Palestinian messages, such as “Free Palestine” and “From the River to the Sea.” The school administration allegedly permitted Palestinian flags, maps of Palestine that omit Israel, and other emblems and slogans to be displayed throughout the building, including in common areas like corridors, the library, and shared classrooms. Doe describes the arrangement as deliberate, designed to convey a sense of community viewpoint rather than reflect any single individual’s expression.
Prayer. A teacher is said to have led a morning gathering on campus that was labeled a “prayer circle” to support Palestine.
Organizing and Political Activities. PAT is alleged to partner with OEP in producing publications, including the “Know Your Rights!” guide—a document created in response to perceived censorship, discrimination, and harassment directed at PPS staff who supported pro-Palestine viewpoints. PAT’s social media presence is said to align with OEP, which coordinates events and public speech supporting Palestine and opposing Israel and which is accessible to both the public and PAT members. OEP used social channels to promote May 15 as “Nakba Day,” for example. PAT, through its own channels, publicized a “students for peace” walkout scheduled for March 15, 2024, culminating in a rally at PAT’s headquarters featuring anti-Israel expressions.
Doe also contends that PAT backs candidates who are openly anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, including Raschelle Chase-Miller and Jorge Sanchez Bautista, both of whom have used social media to advocate anti-Israel messages. Additionally, on May 28, 2024, PAT hosted information sessions for teachers to “learn about your rights to teach and advocate for Palestine within Portland Public Schools” at PAT Hall.
PAT Member Conduct. PAT members and representatives allegedly engaged in coordinated, politically charged actions while knowing or disregarding the impact on Doe, including social-media instructions urging staff to wear pro-Palestinian attire and to circulate pro-Palestinian messages at school. In March 2024, Doe was allegedly confronted by a colleague who actively blocked him from entering the copy room, a person who openly expressed anti-Israel views. Doe further alleges that other PAT members spread rumors about him and assigned false accusations to him.
Doe also charges that PPS discriminated against him and infringed his First Amendment rights. His specific assertions against PPS include:
- That the school’s policy required administration approval for every poster or expressive item displayed in common areas, meaning displays in those spaces were effectively permitted only with school authorization.
- That the school allowed Palestinian flags, depictions of Palestine with Israel omitted, and other symbols to be displayed throughout the building.
- That such flags and symbols appeared in shared spaces—hallways, libraries, and classrooms—and were placed in a way that suggested a community or school-wide stance rather than reflecting a single staff member’s view.
- That when Doe raised concerns, PPS administration refused to remove the pro-Palestinian symbols.
- That when he sought permission to display an Israeli flag or symbols affirming Israel’s right to exist, administrators denied him on grounds that such displays would be disruptive.
- That PPS failed to maintain any form of viewpoint neutrality on the issue by allowing only pro-Palestinian expressions.
Doe maintains that PPS fostered a hostile work environment rooted in religious discrimination, arguing that his school became a one-sided forum for anti-Israel rhetoric, which contributed to a significant relapse of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and necessitated a summer 2024 medical leave and treatment.
Doe claims the discrimination at PPS persists because the district has not resolved or addressed his complaints, has not taken steps to curb the hostile environment, and has subjected him to investigations based on false claims. Although PPS transferred Doe to another school for the 2024–25 year, he asserts that he continues to encounter hostility due to PPS’s failure to hold individuals accountable, which prevents him from attending district-wide events for fear of run-ins with those coworkers.
He also argues that PPS’s failure to clarify the record allows him to remain blamed for incidents that did not happen. For instance, in May 2025, a new colleague allegedly asked whether Doe had been suspended for removing Palestinian flags from all classroom spaces, a change Doe says he had nothing to do with.
The report recommended dismissing Doe’s claim that PAT’s exclusive representation violated his First Amendment right to freely associate, by compelling him to align with expressions that contradict his beliefs and conscience. It concluded that the PECBA framework operates in a way that does not injure associational rights for someone who is not a PAT member and who is not obligated to pay PAT dues. The court viewed Knight v. Minnesota State Board of Community Colleges (1984) as applicable to these concerns, reasoning that it does not constrain speech or association rights and that it does not force any particular religious practice. In this context, Doe’s challenge to his ability to practice his faith was considered irrelevant to the constitutional analysis. In other words, unrestricted rights to speak and to associate, which are not constrained by exclusive representation, also extend to the freedom to practice one’s religion—PAT’s exclusive representation does not coerce Doe into affirming PAT’s beliefs.
The report also proposed denying Doe’s assertion that PPS’s actions infringed on his viewpoint by denying his pro-Israel stance while permitting pro-Palestine expressions. The court cited that when a government entity speaks, it is not barred from shaping the content of its own messages. In Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit held that materials posted on school bulletin boards constituted government speech because the boards were school property, and the principal’s oversight implied approval. That implicit approval amounted to the school “speaking” and when a competing board was removed by the principal, that action was treated as the school choosing not to speak. Doe argued that PPS’s policy requiring explicit or implicit administrative consent for any poster or display caused the viewpoint being challenged to be attributable to PPS, given the assumed approval for the One View Conduct.
The report likewise advised denying Doe’s claim that PPS’s conduct established religion in violation of the Establishment Clause:
Displays. The findings suggested that the Curricula and Display concerns could be viewed as geopolitical or political expressions that merely align with religious beliefs, rather than constituting a constitutional violation. In short, a policy or behavior does not breach the Establishment Clause simply because it coincides with some religious tenets. Even the “Teaching While Muslim” guide—which Doe labels sectarian—did not specify content that distinctly advanced Islam over a political viewpoint shared by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Regarding the prayer-related allegation, the complaint was deemed insufficient under Iqbal’s pleading standards: it merely stated that a teacher led a morning gathering described as a “prayer circle” in support of Palestine, without providing factual detail about whether the gathering crossed from protected expressive activity into government coercion. Put simply, the existence of prayer is not categorically forbidden in schools, given that the Supreme Court has long recognized that secondary students can understand that a school’s permissive, nondiscriminatory speech does not amount to endorsement or coercion.
The report recommended dismissing Doe’s claim of a hostile work environment at PPS, in part due to the statute of limitations and in part on broader grounds: Doe failed to plausibly show that PPS’s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter his terms of employment and create an abusive environment. While the court does not doubt Doe’s belief that his workplace was hostile and conflicted with his faith and identity, the alleged events do not meet the circuit’s standard for pervasiveness and severity.
First, the alleged conduct is tied to a heated geopolitical debate in which it remains unsettled whether Doe’s concerns reflect antisemitism or rather criticisms of the Israeli government’s actions toward Palestinians. To treat the environment as objectively oppressive for Doe would blur the line between his subjective reaction and the objective standard for a hostile workplace.
Second, Doe did not allege that the hostile behavior was directed specifically at him. In earlier cases, the court considered it significant when the conduct was aimed at a particular employee; here much of the conduct concerned broader political discourse rather than direct targeting of the plaintiff.
And the report recommended dismissing Doe’s discrimination claim against PAT, largely on statute-of-limitations grounds, but also because of the following: Doe asserts that, in spring 2025, PAT publicly endorsed two school board candidates who were openly anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. PAT argued that civil liability for a public endorsement would violate its First Amendment rights. The court agreed. Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) holds that harassment law generally targets conduct, and speech itself is considered harassment only when it falls outside First Amendment protections. The endorsement and related social media activity were not directed at Doe specifically, nor did Doe allege he was required to attend the meet-and-greet. In other words, PAT’s endorsements disseminated a message to the general public rather than intruding upon a targeted listener in a highly offensive way. This line of reasoning aligns with Rodriguez’s conclusion that a college professor’s public expression on a matter of public concern could not constitute unlawful harassment when its offensiveness derives from its meaning rather than any conveyed conduct or implicit threats. Doe thus cannot rely on PAT’s endorsements to claim an ongoing hostile workplace or a timely Title VII violation.
I intend to publish a post soon addressing the magistrate judge’s decision to permit Doe to proceed anonymously in the case.
Misha Isaak, Megan S. Bradford, and Dominik K. Mackinnon (Stoel Rives LLP) represent PPS and related defendants. Scott A. Kronland and Matthew J. Murray (Altshuler Berzon LLP) and Karen O’Kasey (Hart Wagner LLP) represent PAT.
