Wednesday, July 22, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Teacher Improperly Barred From Voicing Views to Board
Opinion Says Superior Court Correctly Denied Anti-SLAPP Motion in Case Where Speaker Wanted to Express Opposition, at Meeting, to Proposed Policy Which She Discerned Would Adversely Impact LGBTQ+ Students
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A teacher who, in addressing a board of education to express concerns over a proposed policy, was constantly interrupted by the chair who admonished that her remarks were not germane to the issue, and was eventually ejected from the meeting, has shown a probability of success on three causes of action alleging violations of her free-speech and petition rights, Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has declared.
The unpublished opinion, filed Monday, affirms the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion by Chino Valley Unified School District, rejecting its contention that the then-board chair, Sonja Shaw, merely tried to get plaintiff Natalie Cooney to stick to the issue at hand and did not restrict her speech based on content. Shaw is now in a Nov. 3 run-off for the post of state superintendent of public instruction.
Cooney came to the Sept. 19, 2024 meeting to convey her perception, and that of some members of the Ruben S. Ayala High School’s Gender Sexuality Alliance, of which she was faculty advisor, that a “no deception” policy under consideration, calling for complete candor with parents, would, if put into effect, adversely affect LGBTQ+ students. Her view was that this would have required teachers to disclose to parents’ indications of students’ gender identification, constituting what her brief on appeal denominated a “forced outing policy.”
Shaw blocked Cooney from making her intended presentation, declaring it to be out of order.
Shaw’s Actions
Before Cooney spoke, Shaw said, in reaction to comments by the first speaker, that “[i]f you guys are gonna use this time as a public comment time,” while the agenda item merely called for presentation of the proposal on an informational basis, and not for immediate action, she would have the microphone muted.
Cooney began by saying that the board “has consistently passed policies, like the new policy, that impacts our LGBTQ students in a negative way....” Shaw interrupted, advising:
“I’m gonna have to stop you. It has to be germane specifically to the item.”
Cooney protested:
“It is.”
Shaw accused her of yelling. A dialogue ensued during which Shaw explained that only comments on the wording of the proposal were in order, not the wisdom of it.
The speaker’s microphone was shut off multiple times. Shaw declared an end to the audience accorded to Cooney.
Following Speaker
Cooney remained at the microphone to provide moral support to the next speaker, a former student. Shaw asked that person whether she had comments to offer relative to the wording of the proposal.
“My specific concern is that you are using this policy to put students in danger,” the former student responded. Shaw said:
“Okay—we’re done. Next speaker please. I’ve given you plenty of opportunities to address the language. I’m sorry.”
She then accused Cooney of manipulating the minor, saying:
“And as an adult, please don’t put a child in that situation. You should know better as a teacher. Next speaker please.”
Shaw declared that Cooney was disrupting the meeting; two security guards came forth, a discussion with them ensued, and Cooney left.
The next day, the school’s principal instructed Cooney to have her students remove social-media criticisms of the conduct at the meeting, controversies erupted, and the teacher was placed on administrative leave a month after the board meeting.
The policy proposal, adopted by the board at its October meeting, was in defiance of state legislation enacted earlier that year, and designed as such.
District’s Position
The district argued in its opening brief on appeal:
“…Respondent did not present any evidence that her viewpoint—the ‘message conveyed’—was the reasons for the action. She asks the Court to assume, without evidence, that viewpoint drove Shaw’s statements and dialogue with Respondent in Shaw’s role of presiding over the meeting. She asks the Court to assume, without evidence, that a speaker who wanted to express a different viewpoint ‘that touched on the implementation or effects of the policy’ would have been treated differently….Obviously, assumptions are not evidence, Respondent literally did not try to present evidence, admissible or otherwise, that it was her viewpoint that dictated Shaw’s protected statements and conduct at the meeting, and she did not ask the trial court to allow discovery on the question.”
As to the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the district argued that even if Cooney’s “ evidence could establish that she spoke as a private citizen, she failed to present evidence that her speech on September 19, 2024 was a substantial or motivating factor in any alleged adverse employment action that occurred subsequently.”
Probability of Success
Justice Truc T. Do authored Monday’s opinion which agrees with San Diego Superior Court Judge Tony Raphael that Cooney had demonstrated that three of her claims have minimal merit. A fourth cause of action, alleging a Brown Act violation, was not in issue.
Do said that because Cooney has shown a probability of success on the merits—the inquiry under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16—it is “unnecessary to address whether the allegations supporting the claims arose foam protected activity,” under the first prong.
She declared:
“We agree with the trial court that Cooney produced ample evidence to fulfill her burden of establishing a prima facie case that the District defendants prohibited her from speaking at the September 19, 2024 Board meeting because of the content of her speech….”
Reciting what had occurred at the meeting—and noting that a recording of it belies Shaw’s statement that Cooney was yelling—Do wrote that “[c]onstruing this evidence in favor of Cooney, as we must when reviewing an anti-SLAPP motion, it supports a prima facie showing of viewpoint discrimination by the District defendants.”
Content-Related
The jurist rejected the district’s assertion that Shaw’s actions were unrelated to Cooney’s viewpoint. The justice noted Cooney’s assertion, unaddressed by the district, that she had been present at other board meeting and had “never observed the Board restrict public comment based on the agenda items designation as either [an] ‘information item’ or [an] ‘action item.’ ”
Do continued:
“They also ignore the evidence of hostile conduct toward Cooney—by Shaw, the District as an entity, and the other individual defendants—over the course of the month and a half that followed Cooney’s attempt to criticize the No Deception policy.”
She added that Cooney has “established a reasonable probability of success” as to her claim of unlawful retaliation in placing her on administrative leave.
The case is Cooney v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, D087159.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company