A federal judge ruled last Wednesday that the principal of a Minnesota school district is not protected from alleged retaliation due to her advocacy for LGBTQ+ individuals, nor is she protected under the First Amendment.The case, Thomas v. Marshall Pub Schs, concerns former Marshall, Minnesota middle school principal Mary Kay Thomas, who installed pride flags at school and established a Gay-Straight Alliance. She alleges that she was discriminated against when the school board and superintendent removed her from her position following controversy surrounding her inclusive actions, which were allegedly done against the requests of board members and the superintendent, as well as numerous members of the faculty. Related School board votes to allow discrimination against trans students The board removed gender identity from the districts nondiscrimination policy. She argued that the board violated Title VII, Title IX, and the First Amendment since she was protecting marginalized groups. Title VII and Title IX protect marginalized groups from discrimination in both employment and education, and the First Amendment protects ones right to free speech. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today But U.S. District Court Judge Patrick J. Schiltz said that because she is a self-described straight, cisgender woman, she is not subject to the same protections as LGBTQ+ people. Title VII and Title IX only protect marginalized groups from legal retaliation, not actions on behalf of them. As such, the judge ruled them inapplicable.The district acted against Thomas because of hostility to her views, not because of hostility to her sex, and thus the district would have discriminated against Thomas in exactly the same way had she been a man.The First Amendment claim was thrown out because Thomas was not acting as a private citizen in defending LGBTQ+ rights but rather as the school principal. Schiltz ruled that it was not unlawful for her to be subject to pushback due to her advocacy, as it concerned her job duties and not independent speech.Additionally, Schiltz ruled that this was not retaliation because Thomas did not prove with certainty that she was removed from her position (and transferred to a separate administrative role created just for her) due to her advocacy specifically, as opposed to because she did not heed the words of staff members and her superiors. Thomas claims were dismissed without prejudice. She will remain employed with the district.Superintendent and defendant in the case Jeremy Williams said of this ruling to the Star Tribune, Marshall Public Schools is ready to close the chapter on this prolonged and costly unjustified litigation. He continued in a press release, I am proud to serve this district, where we honor and support each and every student, ensuring they have the opportunity to learn and grow in a positive environment.David Schlesinger, Thomas lawyer, said they are deliberating whether to appeal or file an additional claim in the state court. The Courts order did not end the case.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.