UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

(West Palm Beach Division)

Case No. 

DIANA FEDDERMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL

DISTRICT, a Florida political

subdivision, and MICHAEL J.

BURKE, individually,

Defendants.

 /

Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief

Count I: 

Diana Fedderman’s Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Violation of her

First Amendment Right to Free Speech Against School District and

Superintendent Burke in His Individual Capacity 

Plaintiff, Diana Fedderman, sues defendants, Palm Beach County

School District, and Michael J. Burke, in his individual capacity, and alleges:

Introduction and Summary

1. This is an action by Diana Fedderman, a career educator (27

years) in the Palm Beach County School District who in her private life is

unabashedly vocal about her progressive political views — including on line. 

Superintendent Michael J. Burke, a Republican, demoted her from Assistant

aa

pa The Amlong Firm ! 500 Northeast Fourth Street ! Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ! 954.462.1983

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 1 of 12
Superintendent in the Division of Teaching and Learning to a do-nothing

assignment in a job that had not been staffed for years, the COVID-19-

related grant funding for which would expire one year before she would be

eligible for full retirement. He did so after she, First, tweeted on her private

Twitter account that “Republicans are decimating public education. It’s time

to Act. Vote local[,]” and, Second, suggested in writing to her supervisor

that the school administration could not legally (as the superintendent was

demanding) unilaterally eliminate from a sex-education curriculum for highschool seniors a teaching tool that had been approved by the School Board

— a position with which a school-district lawyer agreed in an e-mail to Ms.

Fedderman’s supervisor. Ms. Fedderman sues the school district and Mr.

Burke under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment concerning the

Twitter post; she sues the school district pursuant to § 112.3187, FLA. STAT.,

the Florida “Whistle-blowers Act,” concerning her objection to violating state

law concerning editing sex-education curricula approved by school boards. 

As to her ¶ 1983 action, Ms. Fedderman seeks damages from both the

school district and Mr. Burke individually and punitive damages against Mr.

Burke; injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. These claims arise under the free-speech clause of the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended to the states by

the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Ku Klux Klan Act”). 

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has

Page 2 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 2 of 12
supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Fedderman’s claim under the Whistleblower’s Act because that claim arises out of the same demotion and is

therefore so related to claims over which the Court has federal-question

jurisdiction that it forms part of the same case or controversy under Article

III of the United States Constitution.

3. The claims being sued upon arose in Palm Beach County,

Florida, where the defendants at all material times did business.

Parties

4. Diana Fedderman was at all times material, and still is, a Palm

Beach County School District employee.

5. Defendant Palm Beach County School District is, and at all times

material was:

a. a Florida political subdivision operating toward Ms.

Fedderman under color of state law, and

b. an “agency” as defined by § 112.2187(3)(a), FLA. STAT.

6. Defendant Michael J. Burke has since October 20, 2021 been the

School District’s Superintendent of Schools and, as to the acts alleged in

Count I, has acted towards Ms. Fedderman under color of state law. 

General Allegations

7. Ms. Fedderman posted her “Republicans-are-decimating-publiceducation” tweet on her private Twitter account at 6:57 a.m. one morning

in early January 2022 — a time of day that was noted by Sean Fahey,

Esquire, a first-amendment lawyer in the School District’s legal office: Mr.

Page 3 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 3 of 12
Fahey was pointing out in an e-mail to a group of persons (including

Superintendent Burke) that Ms. Fedderman was clearly off-duty at the time

and that her tweet was constitutionally protected political speech.

8. Superintendent Burke told Ms. Fedderman he learned about the

post while he, Jay Boggess (his chief of staff), and Alexandra Ayala (a

School Board member) were in Tallahassee for Palm Beach County Days

(January 11 and 12). 

9. Superintendent Burke telephoned Ms. Fedderman early in the

evening of January 14, leaving a message that he wanted her to call him.

10. When she did so — with the phone on speaker so that her

husband could hear it — Superintendent Burke told her that:

a. Her Twitter post had been the topic of conversation

amongst several legislators;

b. One of those legislators, Mike Caruso, a Republican state

representative from Delray Beach, told Superintendent Burke that he had

seen Ms. Fedderman’s tweet, which she attached to a Washington Post

article she was re-posting about how Democrats had not been pushing back

against Republican policies;

c. Representative Caruso, Superintendent Burke told Ms.

Fedderman, had also told him that he was going to take Ms. Fedderman’s

post to Governor Ron DeSantis;

d. While Superintendent Burke acknowledged during the

phone call that he could not order Ms. Fedderman to take the tweet down,

Page 4 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 4 of 12
and said that he was not asking her to do so, he mentioned that people

reading her tweets were conflating her public and private personas, and

e. Informed her “[t]his is not the first time your Twitter

account has come to my attention.”

11. When Ms. Fedderman — not ordered to do so, but intimidated

by the after-hours phone call — took the tweet down during the phone call,

and told Superintendent Burke that she had done so, he thanked her.

12. Immediately following the end of the 2021-2022 academic year,

Mr. Burke summoned Ms. Fedderman to his office June 6 — the first time he

had ever done so — and informed her that he was dissolving her assistantsuperintendent’s position and making her a middle-school principal:

a. Ms. Fedderman told Superintendent Burke that,

notwithstanding that an assignment as a middle-school principal would be a

major demotion, she did not have the credentials that the Florida

Department of Education requires for an middle-school principal, but

b. Mr. Burke said that her lack of credentials did not matter.

13. Ms. Fedderman was next informed the following day by Erica

Reiger, the Chief of Human Resources, that Mr. Burke had decided, instead

of demoting her to a middle-school principal’s job (which state law would

not have permitted because of her lack of credentials), to create a

“Director-of-Equity” position that would:

a. be a demotion, and

Page 5 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 5 of 12
b. be funded for two years — one year short of Ms.

Fedderman’s retirement eligibility — with a COVID-19-related grant from

the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (“ESSER”) Fund.

14. The next thing Ms. Fedderman knew was that a transfer of her

to Director of Supplemental Education Services — a grant-funded position

that had not been staffed for approximately a decade and had no duties

assigned to it — was on the School Board agenda for approval.

15. Although Ms. Fedderman and a lawyer whom she had engaged

spoke against the demotion at the school-board meeting at which the

proposed reorganization (a number of promotions, but no other demotions)

was presented, the School Board voted 6-1 June 18 to approve the package.

16. Shortly after Ms. Fedderman’s demotion, the School District

began advertising for a “Director of Secondary Education,” the duties of

which position include some of Ms. Fedderman’s previous responsibilities.

17. As a direct, natural and proximate result of defendants, the

Palm Beach County School District and its superintendent, Michael J.

Burke’s actions toward Ms. Fedderman, Ms. Fedderman has suffered

damages, including but not limited to:

a. diminishment of earning capacity and

b. emotional distress and mental anguish.

18. Superintendent Burke exhibited wilful disregard of Ms.

Fedderman’s clearly established First-Amendment right to free speech,

Page 6 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 6 of 12
entitling her to recover punitive damages against him in his individual

capacity.

19. If not enjoined by this Court (both preliminarily and

permanently) to cease their burdening of Ms. Fedderman’s constitutional

right to free speech, the School District and Superintendent Burke would

continue to punish Ms. Fedderman for having engaged in protected speech

— i.e., criticizing Republicans for “decimating public education” and urging

her readers to “vote local.”

20. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, to recover her

costs and litigation expenses, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, for

bringing this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Diana Fedderman, prays that this Court will

grant judgment for her, and against the defendants, Palm Beach County

School District and Michael J. Burke, it superintendent of schools, in his

individual capacity:

One, determining that the School District and Superintendent Burke

violated Ms. Fedderman’s rights to Free Speech by demoting as a result of

her “Republicans-are-decimating-public-education” tweet her assistant

superintendent to a do-nothing, previously unstaffed job that does not have

guaranteed funding to permit her to reach full retirement;

Two, enjoining the City and Superintendent Burke, both preliminarily

and permanently, to cease burdening Ms. Fedderman’s first-amendment

Page 7 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 7 of 12
rights by, inter alia, restoring her to her assistant superintendent’s position,

or to a permanent, budgeted position similar to that;

Three, awarding compensatory damages against the School District

and Superintendent Burke, jointly and severally;

Four, awarding punitive damages against Superintendent Burke in his

individual capacity;

Five, awarding costs, including attorneys’ fees and litigation

expenses, against the School District and Superintendent Burke, jointly and

severally, and

Six, granting such other and further relief as is just. 

Count II: 

Diana Fedderman’s Florida Whistle-blower’s Act Claim

21. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 

1-6 and 12-16 above as if they were fully set forth in Count II.

22. Ms. Fedderman’s supervisor, Glenda Sheffield, Ed.D., the Chief

Academic Officer, e-mailed Ms. Fedderman at 8:14 a.m. May 4, 2022 to

instruct her that Superintendent Burke wanted Ms. Fedderman to remove

immediately from the sex-education course for high-school seniors a

teaching-tool poster called “Genderbread v3.3,” i.e.:

Page 8 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 8 of 12
23. Ms. Fedderman responded to Ms. Sheffield:

A soon as Pete or Cheryl come in, we’ll remove it. I will let you

know when its done. I recognize this is a request from the

superintendent. I am concerned that the Board approved this

curriculum, and now we are changing it without the Board’s

knowledge nor vote. However, I will do as instructed.

24. Ms. Fedderman’s concern was that because the School Board

had already approved the use of the Genderbread teaching tool, school

Page 9 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 9 of 12
administrators’ unilaterally scrapping it would violate § 1003.42(b), FLA.

STAT., which provides in pertinent part that “[a]ll instructional materials. . .

used to teach reproductive health or any disease, including HIV/AIDS, its

symptoms, development, and treatment, . . . must be annually approved by

a district school board in an open, noticed public meeting.”

25. At Ms. Fedderman’s urging, Ms. Sheffield sought an opinion from

Bruce Harris, Esquire, one of the School District’s lawyers.

26. Although Mr. Harris advised Ms. Sheffield by e-mail that the

administration should go back to the School Board before making any

change, and Ms. Sheffield so advised Superintendent Burke, Superintendent

Burke ordered her to remove “Genderbread” anyway.

27. Ms. Fedderman complied with Superintendent Burke’s order.

28. Nonetheless, a month and two days later, Superintendent Burke

summoned Ms. Fedderman into his office to tell her that he was abolishing

her position as an assistant superintendent.

29. As a direct, natural and proximate result of defendants’ actions

toward Ms. Fedderman, Ms. Fedderman has suffered damages, including but

not limited to:

a. diminishment of earning capacity and

b. emotional distress and mental anguish.

30. If not enjoined by this Court to cease its deprivation of Ms.

Fedderman’s rights under § 112.3187, the Palm Beach County School

Page 10 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 10 of 12
District would continue to retaliate against Ms. Fedderman for engaging in

behavior protected before the Whistle-blower’s Act.

31. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to § 112.3187(9)(d), to recover her

costs and litigation expenses, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, for

bringing this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Diana Fedderman, prays that this Court will

grant judgment for her, and against defendant, Palm Beach County School

District:

One, determining that the School District violated Ms. Fedderman’s

rights under the Whistle-blower’s Act;

Two, enjoining the City, both preliminarily and permanently, to cease

discriminating against Ms. Fedderman by reinstating her as an assistant

superintendent, or to some similar position;

Three, awarding compensatory damages against the Palm Beach

County School District;

Fourth, awarding costs, including attorneys’ fees and litigation

expenses, against the Palm Beach County School District, and

Five, granting such other and further relief as is just.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE AMLONG FIRM

500 Northeast Fourth Street

Suite 101

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1154

(954) 462-1983

Page 11 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 11 of 12
/s/ William R. Amlong 

WILLIAM R. AMLONG

Florida Bar No. 470288

WRAmlong@TheAmlongFirm.com

KAREN COOLMAN AMLONG

Florida Bar No. 275565

KAmlong@TheAmlongFirm.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, 

Diana Fedderman

Dated: November 29, 2022

\\amlong3\cpshare\CPWin\HISTORY\211019_0001\17F7.164

Page 12 of 12

Case 9:22-cv-81857-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 12 of 12