Sherzad v. Pettigrew
Mashal Sherzad v. Melinda Pettigrew, Thai Nguyen, Timothy Beebe, John Doe, Jane Roe, University of Minnesota, and Rachel Croson
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:24-cv-01739
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 24
In Sherzad v. Pettigrew, Judge Ann D. Montgomery granted summary judgment to the University of Minnesota and its officials, dismissing all claims brought by former DEI Program Manager Mashal Sherzad, who was fired after posting a photo of herself next to an Israeli flag painted with red swastikas during a Barcelona protest.
Public university employees, particularly those working in diversity, equity, and inclusion roles, whose personal social media activity may be scrutinized against the specific requirements of their position; also broadly relevant to any public employee whose off-duty speech is claimed to conflict with their official responsibilities.
What happened
In Sherzad v. Pettigrew, Mashal Sherzad, a Muslim queer woman of Afghan descent, was hired in October 2023 as the Program Manager for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health. About six weeks into her job, she posted a photo of herself standing next to an Israeli flag spray-painted with red swastikas during a peaceful protest in Barcelona, Spain. University officials learned of the post through a complaint email, placed Sherzad on paid leave, conducted an investigation, and then fired her, citing her lack of judgment and inability to credibly perform her DEI role.
Sherzad sued the University and several individual officials, arguing that her firing violated her First Amendment free speech rights and constituted unlawful discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin under federal and Minnesota state law. She contended that her post addressed a matter of public concern—the Israel-Hamas conflict—and that her firing was therefore unconstitutional. She also argued that other University employees who posted controversial views about the conflict were not fired, suggesting that her protected characteristics played a role in the termination decision.
Judge Montgomery granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the entire case with prejudice (meaning Sherzad cannot refile these claims). On the First Amendment claim, the court applied a legal balancing test and found that the University's interest in maintaining an effective DEI office outweighed Sherzad's free speech interests, because her specific job required her to foster inclusion and the swastika photo directly undermined her ability to do that. On the discrimination claims, the court found that the other University employees Sherzad identified as comparators were not in similar positions—they were faculty, not DEI professionals—so she failed to establish the basic elements of a discrimination case. The court also dismissed a conspiracy claim and found the individual defendants shielded from personal liability by qualified immunity. A related motion to exclude Sherzad's expert witness was dismissed as moot once summary judgment was granted.
The detailed version
CASE: Sherzad v. Pettigrew, Civil No. 24-1739 ADM/EMB (D. Minn. Oct. 30, 2025). JUDGE: Ann D. Montgomery, U.S. District Judge.
BACKGROUND: Mashal Sherzad was hired in October 2023 as DEI Program Manager at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health (SPH), a role requiring her to implement anti-racism and inclusion programs and work with a high degree of independence across faculty, staff, and students. In December 2023, about six weeks into her job, she posted photos from a Barcelona protest to her Instagram (which auto-shared to her Facebook account, which had 6,000 followers). One photo showed her posing next to an Israeli flag spray-painted with two large red swastikas, captioned 'This is not a war. This is not a conflict. This is GENOCIDE.' An unknown member of the public emailed University officials, including SPH Interim Dean Timothy Beebe and Sherzad's supervisor Lauren Jones. Jones asked Sherzad to remove the photo; Sherzad complied within 45 minutes and apologized by email, acknowledging the photo 'could and did get taken out of context.' Beebe ordered an HR investigation led by Director of HR Thai Nguyen. After the investigation, incoming SPH Dean Melinda Pettigrew decided to terminate Sherzad's employment, concluding her post showed a lack of judgment incompatible with the DEI role. Sherzad was fired effective January 24, 2024.
CLAIMS: Sherzad sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (alleging First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection violations), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (race discrimination), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), naming as defendants Pettigrew, Nguyen, Beebe, the University of Minnesota, Provost Rachel Croson, and unnamed John Doe and Jane Roe defendants. She also offered the expert testimony of Dr. Barry Trachtenberg, a history professor at Wake Forest University.
FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS (Count 1): The court applied the three-step framework for public employee speech claims under Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and related precedent.
Step 1 — Speech on a matter of public concern: Both parties agreed the post addressed a matter of public concern (the Israel-Hamas conflict) and that Sherzad spoke as a private citizen, not in her official capacity. The court proceeded to step two.
Step 2 — Actual or reasonably foreseeable disruption: The court found both actual and reasonably foreseeable disruption. Actual disruption was established by Dean Pettigrew's loss of confidence in Sherzad's judgment, which the court recognized as a form of workplace disruption under Palmer v. County of Anoka, 200 F. Supp. 3d 842 (D. Minn. 2016). Foreseeable disruption was established because: (a) the post was visible to 6,000 Facebook followers; (b) a screenshot existed and could be re-shared; (c) the swastika is a widely recognized hate symbol; and (d) Sherzad's specific job was to promote inclusion. The court distinguished the Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Melton v. City of Forrest City, 147 F.4th 896 (8th Cir. 2025), where a firefighter's racially ambiguous post did not relate to firefighting. Here, the post directly implicated Sherzad's ability to perform her DEI function.
Step 3 — Pickering balancing: The court weighed six factors from Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Protection District, 793 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2015): (1) Need for workplace harmony — favored defendants; Sherzad's job was specifically to foster inclusion; (2) Close working relationships required — favored defendants; she worked directly with all SPH stakeholders; (3) Time, place, and manner — favored defendants despite the post being made off-duty, because it was publicly visible to 6,000 followers; (4) Context of public debate — favored Sherzad; the post arose from a public political debate, not an internal employment dispute; (5) Degree of public interest — neutral; Sherzad had no specialized expertise and was not a whistleblower; (6) Whether speech impeded ability to perform duties — strongly favored defendants; the swastika image was directly contrary to her role as a DEI professional. The court concluded that SPH's interests as an employer outweighed Sherzad's free speech interests.
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS (Counts 2, 4, 5): Claims under the Equal Protection Clause, § 1981, and the MHRA were all analyzed under the Title VII McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court focused on the fourth element of the prima facie case — whether similarly situated employees outside Sherzad's protected class were treated differently. Sherzad identified University law school and liberal arts faculty who posted controversial views about the conflict without being fired. The court rejected this comparison because those employees (a) were faculty, not DEI professionals, (b) worked under different supervisors and deans, and (c) had not posted content involving hate symbols. Because Sherzad failed to identify a proper comparator, she could not establish a prima facie case. Alternatively, even if she had, defendants articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (the post's incompatibility with her DEI role), and Sherzad presented no pretext evidence.
Additional dismissal grounds for § 1981 claims: The court noted in a footnote that direct § 1981 claims against state actors are barred in the Eighth Circuit and must be brought via § 1983 (citing Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University, 5 F.4th 926 (8th Cir. 2021)), and that the University as a state instrumentality is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and is not a 'person' subject to § 1981 or § 1983 liability.
CONSPIRACY CLAIM (Count 3): Because Sherzad failed to show any underlying constitutional violation, her § 1983 conspiracy claim also failed and was dismissed.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: The individual defendants (Pettigrew, Nguyen, Beebe, Croson, and the unnamed defendants) were granted qualified immunity because Sherzad failed to show they violated any federal right. Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.
EXPERT TESTIMONY: Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Barry Trachtenberg was denied as moot because summary judgment was granted on all claims.
RULING: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on all claims. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (meaning Sherzad cannot refile these claims in federal court). The Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony is DENIED AS MOOT.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.