By Mike Donoghue
WOODSTOCK – A longtime Woodstock Union High School snowboard coach, who was fired after he joined a private conversation last February by two student-athletes on his team about transgender athletes, has lost his fight in federal court for a preliminary injunction to win back his job.
Coach David J. Bloch has maintained he was unlawfully fired, and both his First Amendment and due process rights were violated by School Superintendent Sherry Sousa, the Windsor Central Supervisory Union Board and others. He wanted immediate reinstatement.
Judge Christina Reiss wrote in her 51-page decision that Bloch had failed to show he faced immediate irreparable harm, and she said the injunction was not warranted.
However, certain parts of his lawsuit could continue, Reiss ruled in a decision filed after court closed on Dec. 28.
Bloch wanted to resume coaching this winter, but the district has elevated his former assistant Alyssa Smith McDonough to head coach and hired Tom Emery as the new assistant coach. Woodstock’s first scheduled meet of the winter season is next Wednesday, Jan. 10.
Sousa told the Vermont Standard that she and the district are happy with the initial ruling by Judge Reiss.
“The District is very pleased with this result. After a full evidentiary hearing, the federal court refused to reinstate Mr. Bloch, rejecting his arguments that he was exercising his free speech rights when he made comments about a transgender student/athlete on another team,” she said in an email.
“The ruling demonstrates that our decision to demand that school employees behave in a way that is consistent with a supportive, respectful and inclusive learning environment is both the right thing to do and consistent with the law,” Sousa said.
Burlington lawyers Pietro Lynn and Sean Toohey, on behalf of Sousa and the school district, maintained through testimony and legal arguments that the injunction request should be rejected. They took over the case after another law firm had drafted the dismissal letter that Sousa served Bloch on Feb. 9, 2023 — one day after the transgender conversation, testimony showed.
Bloch, who founded the snowboard program in 2011, could not be reached for comment this week about the ruling and did not respond to messages.
One of his lawyers, Mathew Hoffman, said they were unhappy by the ruling but look forward to continuing the legal battle.
“We’re disappointed that Coach Bloch cannot immediately return to the team,” Hoffman said in an email.
“No one should lose his or her job for speaking the truth. But we are pleased the court has allowed us to continue to defend Coach Bloch’s right to speak without censorship. We look forward to proving that Coach Bloch and all Americans have the right to express their opinion, especially on matters of public concern,” Hoffman said.
Bloch filed his lawsuit with five claims on July 17. He maintained his firing was in retaliation for him expressing his views, that he was discriminated against due to the content of his speech and his viewpoint; that there was an effort to impose prior restraint on his speech; that overbroad restraints had been placed on his free speech rights and there were due process violations and a vagueness in the district’s claims, court records show.
He wants to be restored to his coaching post, lift the ban on possible future positions in the district, purge records of the termination case and to win his legal fees.
The preliminary injunction was sought because the lawyers had said it was likely the case would never be ready for trial until April 2024.
Reiss wrote that she would grant in part and dismiss in part requests filed by codefendant Heather Bouchery, the interim State of Vermont Agency of Education (AOE) secretary of education and Jay Nichols, the executive director of the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), to throw out the lawsuit.
In a September hearing, former Vermont Assistant Attorney General Ella Spottsford, the lead lawyer for Bouchery, and attorney Steven Zakrzewski, on behalf of Nichols, both attempted to show their clients had nothing to do with Bloch’s firing. Bloch, during cross examination, testified he had never met Nichols. Bouchery did not attend the court hearing.
Spottsford could not be reached for comment. Nichols, who heads the 270-member statewide school association, said Wednesday he was pleased with the ruling.
“I agree with the decision of the judge. We know there is still more to this, we know the judge will have to decide later,” Nichols said.
“In terms of the VPA, again we never have anything to do with the employment of coaches. It is not up to us. It is a local school district decision, and we don’t have anything to do with how school districts do their own policies,” Nichols said.
The AOE and VPA maintained their policies did not cause Bloch’s dismissal, Reiss noted.
Reiss heard nearly a full day of legal arguments and testimony — sometimes conflicting — from witnesses on both sides on Sept. 25. Reiss also received subsequent legal filings.
In September, Sousa, Woodstock Athletic Director Jack Boymer, and Assistant Principal Cody Tancreti testified on behalf of the defendants. They maintained Bloch had admitted to Boymer and Sousa that he made disparaging remarks in front of his team about a transgender athlete competing on the girls team for Hartford High that day.
Bloch and his lawyers maintained there was no disparaging remark about the Hartford transgender athlete.
Bloch’s lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom noted the coach was never told he had the right to a lawyer, a right to present witnesses and the right to appeal his dismissal. Bloch said he was never provided a copy of the investigative report that Sousa promised him when she fired him. As it turned out there was never a written report, but rather just notes that Boymer and Tancreti provided.
Bloch maintains he joined a conversation between a boy and girl on his team during a break in a meet at Jay Peak on Feb. 8, 2023. Bloch said the boy had maintained it was unfair that a transgender athlete was competing for the girls at Hartford High. A girl on the Woodstock team maintained her teammate was “transphobic,” records show.
Bloch said because he overheard the comments, he entered the private conversation and explained to the two student-athletes that he believed, based on scientific evidence, that there are only two sexes — male and female — and that the sex was determined by his or her chromosomes and are set. He said archeologists would know the difference between male and female bones that had been dug up.
Contribute to Vermont Daily Chronicle via Stripe.com – quick, easy, confidential
During the hearing, for the first time Woodstock school officials publicly claimed Bloch had said in front of his team that “they need to try real hard because they are competing against a guy pretending to be a girl.”
Bloch said in court that he had said under his breath something like “Let’s go out and beat that biological boy.” He was unsure if anyone heard it. He said the comment was made out of frustration on behalf of the girls on his team, Reiss noted.
One of the two students involved in the private conversation testified in court he was never questioned by the school officials during its investigation. He disputed some claims by the school district.
The female student was one of four people interviewed by the school district, including the assistant coach and another athlete — both who were not at the lodge and did not travel to the meet at Jay Peak.
While the boy testified for Bloch, the girl involved in the conversation was never called to the witness stand by the defendants.
Bloch’s lawyers submitted text messages sent to the coach by the female student supporting him and indicated she had never told anybody about the private conversation at the lodge. She said she wanted Bloch back as coach.
Tancreti’s notes indicated, without attribution, the girl was friends with the Hartford transgender student “and informed them that this had happened.”
Bloch estimated the whole conversation lasted 3 minutes or less and the comments were never directed at any opposing athlete.
Sousa, in the dismissal letter drafted for her to give Bloch, said in part, “I find that your use of disparaging names created an objectively offensive environment and constituted harassment based on gender identity, justifying terminating your contact as a snowboarding coach.”
As it turned out the dismissal letter was defective, Sousa told the court. It had cited Woodstock’s Hazing, Harassment, and Bullying policy, but it was not relevant because the reported claim involved a student from another school.
Reiss noted that Bloch testified that his opinion is motivated by his Catholic religious beliefs.
The firing came with only a couple weeks left in the season. Bloch was paid a seasonal stipend of $4,439 to coach in 2022-23.
Tancreti testified he received a text message the night of the meet from Hartford Athletic Director Jeff Moreno, with a complaint about a comment reportedly made by Bloch. Tancreti said he never spoke with Moreno during the investigation.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Faith, Society & Culture, Sports, State Government
Leftist Progressive judges installed by? Regardless, there exists no judge, no politico, no jury, no teacher, no one who can EVER alter the scientific fact that there exist innate differences between males and females. And anyone with half-a-brain or half an anything else that the human body comes equipped with KNOWS it. Yet the leftist buffoonery continues unabated.
Amen!
What does ANY of that have to do with this case? Coach should have kept his hot takes to himself, he’d still have a job.
In the immortal words of Laura Ingrhram, “shut up and dribble.”
More like Leftist tyranny. Everyone is afraid to speak their mind now regarding transgender issues despite countries like Sweden and Finland backing off the affirming gender identity treatment because of the poor long term outcomes. And the number of lawsuits against the Tavistock gender identity clinic in the UK is numerous. At this rate, Vermont will be the last one determined to damage children by ignoring what the rest of the world is discovering that the vast majority of gender confused children will accept their biological gender by 18 if left alone or with some kind of accepting one’s DNA therapy.
That’s a good point Ed, although Bloch could have safely spoken his mind by sending his opinion to a local paper (or fine online publication such as VDC) while not on the clock and he would have been protected by the First Amendment by disseminating a private opinion that is of public interest.
But you got me thinking there. Can a high school biology teacher without fear being fired, legitimately teach a biology class anymore?? Could a genetics class now be construed as an offensive environment by a transgender individual? (since the biological facts taught therein entirely refute their almost religious claims about having genderized souls that are at odds with their DNA.) 🤔🤔🤔
Neighboring New Hampshire is seeing the light on this “transgender” lunacy with a bill to ban surgeries for minors passing the NH House with some Democrat votes. I bet even most people in Vermont aren’t on board with this craziness. And it’s time to make themselves heard.
Jon, I can’t imagine how Vermont high school biology/genetics teachers navigate this minefield now.
Judge Christina Reiss was appointed by unanimous consent through the United States Senate in 2009.
While I think it is ridiculous that Bloch was fired over this, I think he’s going to have an uphill struggle winning this on free-speech grounds. His problem is that the speech that got him fired (the conversation with the students) was made as an employee, not as a citizen. His conversation with the students only happened because he was an employee of the school. Therefore he fails the Pickering-Connick balance test right out of the gate.
It doesn’t matter that he was expressing his own personal beliefs, even if they are grounded in his religion. The fact that he made the comments as an employee removes his First Amendment protection. This differs from both the Travis Allen case (Randolph High School trans volleyball team) and the Tiffany Riley case (Windsor BLM.) In both those cases, the speech that got them fired was made as a private citizen, and as it happens, on a matter of public interest. They both passed the Pickering-Connick test and therefore both had First Amendment protection and were fired illegally.
Are you saying that facts don’t care about your feelings?
I think he will not win on free-speech grounds. He may have a case on the due process side of it. Would the Sousa have fired him (and so quickly) had she agreed with him? The speed at which he was dismissed seems odd to me. Some would say vindictive and retaliatory due to her allegedly having a transgender child herself 🙄
But I find his claim “No one should lose his or her job for speaking the truth.” to be speciously weak. There’s plenty of truthful things you could say that would cause such grave offense that nobody would expect to remain employed after having said them. Read Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve” or even Thomas Sowell’s “Discrimination and Disparities” verbatim to a class of race-diverse highschoolers and while you might not utter anything but the truth, you will find out in short order that speaking the truth is not an affirmative defense for being fired for being offensive.
The truth is often offensive. Schools (both public and private) have the right to decide where exactly to draw the line between allowing completely free speech and fostering a safe, inclusive space for all. And I can’t believe I just typed that… but it’s reality.
“It doesn’t matter that he was expressing his own personal beliefs, even if they are grounded in his religion. The fact that he made the comments as an employee removes his First Amendment protection.”
Mr. Lynch, did you really mean to say that employees don’t have First Amendment protection? I think you mean that they have their First Amendment right but not employment protection. That would be more factual. Or have I misunderstood your words?
Respectfully,
Pam Baker
Hi Pam. Yes, I was commenting on the protections offered by the First Amendment as they intersect and balance with the employer’s rights (and in this case the employer is the State.)
No one has unrestricted First Amendment protection. There are restrictions established by US Supreme Court precedent. For public employees, there are at least three relevant opinions that are used as a test to determine if a public employee has First Amendment protection for a given piece of speech.
The three opinions are “Pickering v. Board of Education” (1968), “Connick v. Myers” (1983) and “Garcetti v. Ceballos” (2006). The first part of the test (which was decided by “Garcetti v. Ceballos”) is – if the employee made the speech pursuant to his job, then he has no protection.
From my understanding, Bloch made the statements pursuant to his job. He was at an event with the kids getting paid to do his job in the lodge waiting for the event to start when he made the statements. So he fails the first part of the test and you don’t have to go any further.
Had he made the statements in the capacity of a private citizen (not pursuant to his job), then the next part of the test asks if it was a matter of public interest. If it is not a matter of public interest, then he has no protection.
The only path through the decision-tree of the test where a public employee does have First Amendment protection is when 1) They make the statement as a private citizen, not pursuant to their job AND 2) The content of their speech is a matter of public interest AND 3) Based on the specific content of the speech the employee’s right to free speech on balance is outweighs the employers interest to a harmonious workplace.
If you read through the various opinions and dissents (on oyez.org), there is a lot more nuance and some intricate and fascinating discussion but the established law is pretty straightforward and relatively clear.
Bottom line – as an employee of a *private* company you have no First Amendment protection whatsoever from your employer’s decisions. As an employee of the government you have limited protection (per the test above) and you should tread very carefully when at work.
Thank you Mr. Lynch, for your cogent and concise response. I appreciate the effort and time it took to write this response and now have a better understanding of what you meant.
Best,
Pam Baker
Certainly Pam. I highly recommend listening to the oral arguments on oyez.org for all 3 cases if you have a spare few hours. It really gives one an immersive understanding as to why these cases are so complex and why the decisions were made the way they were.
It also gives one an appreciation for the complexity of the task the justices are faced with. To take specific cases and inductively derive opinions that interpret existing law without violating existing precedent (unless absolutely necessary.) It’s a remarkably complex task. They are human and they struggled to arrive at balanced opinions. Not to mention the Herculean intellectual burden placed upon the appellant attorneys – to be faced with the task of convincing 5 out of 9 intellectual superheroes (any one of whom could shred and deflate you with a single sentence) in an hour or two of argument is just absolutely mind-blowing. It’s no wonder landmark cases are so rare.
Cases with links to oyez are below. Audio arguments on the left of the screen.
“Pickering v. Board of Education” (1968) – https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510
“Connick v. Myers” (1983) – https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1251
“Garcetti v. Ceballos” (2006) – https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1251
The most terrified person on planet earth, Vermont white male biology teacher approaching retirement. Think about it.
There is science in its pursuit of finding the truth.
There is marxist political science in its pursuit of power, money and compliance.
Under what system does the Vermont Biology teacher have to operate?
This is old school roman tactics, that were used on the Appian way. The term decimated is rather interesting. The more things change the more they are revealed to be the same.
As Ancient Origins writes, “decimation” means “removal of a tenth” in Latin. And that’s basically what this brutal punishment entails.
As Greek historian Polybius explained around 150 B.C.E., decimation was usually used on soldiers who’d deserted their posts during battle. Afterward, the guilty unit would be forced to draw lots, and the tenth with the shortest straw would be brutally executed by their fellow soldiers.
“The tribune assembles the legion, and brings up those guilty of leaving the ranks, reproaches them sharply, and finally chooses by lots sometimes five, sometimes eight, sometimes twenty of the offenders, so adjusting the number thus chosen that they form as near as possible the tenth part of those guilty of cowardice,” Polybius wrote, according to Cambridge University Press. “Those on whom the lot falls are clubbed mercilessly.”
Appian Way
in 71 BC, after the defeat of Spartacus and his slave rebellion, the Romans crucified 6,000 enslaved people along the Appian Way as a warning to others who might consider rebellion.
Vermont teachers are slaves, along with our students to the government schools.
This is scary, and on several levels, starting with the dismissal letter. The review of the justice system speaks for itself. Unfortunately, it is pretty much standard procedure in V. now.
Be aware, that if you voice your opinion against this leftist ” Transgender” nonsense,
you will be held to the full extent of the leftist judicial system.
The left will not follow the constitution, with things like ” Freedom Of Speech ” because it goes against all normal thinking, and we know they are not normal, especially these transgender clowns………….
Sousa is very mistaken about what the ruling was and she was wrong calling the coaches remarks harassment when no one in the conversation could have been harassed.
God creates us male and female and you can’t change from one to the other. This is biological fact. People with sanity living in that school district should start talking with their neighbors and run to dislodge this crazy school board and superintendent.
I’d like to see the Superintendent fired, the school board members voted out and the coach rehired.
Any person (that works in a school system or represents students in any way) that cannot see the unfairness of a biological male competing on (and against) a team of females – in a sporting event that was designed for FEMALES – has no business working in any school system.
To think that “the powers that be” condone such incidents is alarming! It’s shameful was is happening to our “once-proud”, “once-conservative” little state – and even worse – to read that a federal judge allowed it to happen.