From the case McIntyre v. Little Miami School District, a ruling issued on Monday by Judge Matthew McFarland of the Southern District of Ohio, with an appeal currently pending:
Plaintiff George McIntyre serves as a teacher at Little Miami High School, which is part of the defendant Little Miami School District (“District”), where his courses include American History and Advanced Placement European History. McIntyre affixed a classroom poster bearing the message “Hate Has No Home Here” (“Poster”), shown below:
As shown above, the Poster depicts five hands grasping hearts that bear various symbols, including the American flag, a peace sign, the rainbow Pride flag, and the transgender Pride flag. McIntyre posted the Poster to remind his students to “treat all their classmates with mutual respect, regardless of personal opinions or beliefs.” …
The District has long permitted teachers to decorate their classrooms and display personal items. That latitude, however, is “defined by” the policy of the Little Miami School Board (“Board”).
That policy framework shifted when the Ohio General Assembly enacted House Bill 8, known as the Ohio Parents’ Bill of Rights. The statute requires school districts to provide parental notice and review for materials containing “sexuality content” and allows parents to opt out for alternate assignments. “[S]exuality content” is defined as “oral or written instruction, presentation, image, or description of sexual concepts or gender ideology in a classroom setting,” but explicitly excludes “[i]ncidental references to sexual concepts or gender ideology occurring outside of formal instruction or presentations on such topics.” On October 28, 2025, the Board adopted Board Policy 5780.01, incorporating the statute’s definitions and notice/opt-out requirements into District policy.
The Board contemplated restricting classroom wall-hangings to the U.S. flag, the Ohio flag, and school-related displays, but ultimately concluded that state law and Board Policy 5780.01 provided adequate oversight. Under District guidance, concerns that a classroom display contains “sexuality content” under state law or Board Policy 5780.01 are subject to a three-tier review: first by the school principal, then on appeal to the superintendent, and finally to the Board….
In September 2025, Defendant David Wallace, the Board President, visited McIntyre’s classroom and photographed the Poster. Thereafter, Wallace contacted District Superintendent Regina Morgan, requesting that McIntyre remove the Poster. Morgan relayed the request to Little Miami High School’s Principal, Kevin Harleman.
Harleman spoke with McIntyre about the Poster, asking whether the display was tied to his curriculum or classroom discussions, or if it was merely decorative. On February 2, 2026, McIntyre emailed Harleman, identifying specific content standards within the model curriculum for his classes that he believed the Poster was “especially applicable” to. McIntyre further noted that, while the Poster related to those broad historical themes, it was not used as a formal instructional device and instead served as “a reminder that [his students] must treat their classmates with mutual respect.” Harleman forwarded that email to Morgan.
The next day, Morgan informed Wallace that, after her review, while the Poster contained symbols of sexual identity, she did not “believe a reasonable observer would conclude its primary purpose [was] to prompt discussion, provide instruction, or solicit student engagement on sexual concepts or gender ideology.” Under the “display guidelines,” Morgan acknowledged that it was “now a Board decision as to how to move forward.” …
[On February 25, t]he Board voted 4 to 1 to classify the Poster as sexuality content under Board Policy 5780.01 and ordered its immediate removal from McIntyre’s classroom….
The court rejected McIntyre’s claim that the Board’s actions violated his First Amendment rights:
Although public employees “undoubtably enjoy certain rights,” those rights “do not transform them into ‘sovereigns unto themselves.'” Rather, “the government, just like a private employer, retains ‘control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created’: the employee’s job.” That authority carries particular significance in the context of public education, where Ohio’s compulsory-attendance requirements give public school teachers “a captive audience for their in-class speech.” …
[Thus], the Sixth Circuit has held that a public school teacher’s in-class curricular and pedagogical choices are not protected by the First Amendment. In reaching this holding, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “[w]hen a teacher teaches, the school system does not regulate that speech as much as it hires that speech. Expression is a teacher’s stock in trade, the commodity [ ]he sells to [his] employer in exchange for a salary.” Since Ohio law left curriculum choices to elected school boards as “an accountability measure,” those boards are entitled to “regulate the content of what is or is not expressed” on their behalf….
Here, McIntyre spoke as a public employee pursuant to his official duties when displaying the Poster in his classroom. McIntyre hung the Poster to foster a respectful environment among his students and later identified specific state curriculum standards that he believed the Poster supported…. McIntyre’s motivations and actions were directly related to, and arose from his professional responsibilities as a teacher shaping his students’ learning environment.
Whether McIntyre used the Poster for formal instruction is immaterial. He gained access to and control over the classroom wall space through his position as a public school employee, not as a private citizen. His ability to maintain classroom displays thus existed within the scope of that public employment, which the Board regulated through established policies. As McIntyre displayed the Poster pursuant to his official duties, his expression constituted unprotected employee speech.
Contrary to McIntyre’s argument, the Supreme Court’s holding in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022) does not alter this conclusion. Unlike the high school coach in Kennedy, who offered a brief prayer while essentially “off the clock” after a game, McIntyre maintained a permanent display on his classroom wall that was visible during school hours. Managing the classroom environment during the school day relates to his job responsibilities, not private citizen speech. Kennedy thus does not compel a finding that McIntyre spoke as a private citizen…. The Board was [thus] entitled to restrain [McIntyre’s] speech, and McIntyre is not entitled to declaratory judgment that his First Amendment rights were violated….
Omar Tarazi represents the defendants.
