The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court's decision in the case of McNellis v. Douglas County School District, allowing former school official Corey McNellis to continue his legal battle against the district. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether McNellis was fired for his religious beliefs, which is a significant issue under First Amendment protections.

This ruling impacts McNellis, who was an Athletic Director and Assistant Principal at Ponderosa High School, and could have broader implications for employees in public schools regarding their rights to express religious views without fear of retaliation.

Background

Corey McNellis was employed by the Douglas County School District until he was placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated. The situation began when McNellis expressed concerns about an extracurricular theater production of The Laramie Project and offered to add a "Christian perspective" to the production. Following his comments, he was told by Danny Winsor, the Executive Director of Schools for the Parker Region, that he was being put on leave due to his religious remarks.

In July 2022, McNellis filed a lawsuit against the Douglas County School District in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. He claimed that his termination was a violation of his First Amendment rights and constituted religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Colorado law. Initially, the district court dismissed his case, but McNellis appealed, leading to a reversal of that dismissal by a prior panel of the Tenth Circuit in 2024.

After the case was sent back to the lower court, the Douglas County School District sought summary judgment, arguing that McNellis had not established a prima facie case of discrimination. On December 22, 2025, the district court granted this summary judgment, concluding that there was no direct evidence of discrimination and that McNellis had failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact.

The Ruling

Upon reviewing the case, the Tenth Circuit Court found that the district court had erred in its decision. The court ruled that there was indeed a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the motivations behind McNellis's termination. The judges noted, "evidence that the School District fired McNellis for his 'religious remarks,' and the subsequent investigation of McNellis, raise the very question of whether the School District terminated McNellis for his protected religious beliefs."

The court pointed out that the School District's claim of non-religious, performance-based reasons for McNellis's termination needed to be evaluated by a jury. The judges emphasized that motivation is a factual question that should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage. They stated, "A reasonable jury could conclude that the School District terminated McNellis for his religious beliefs and conducted a pretextual investigation to justify the termination."

As a result, the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing McNellis's claims to move forward.

Impact

This ruling is significant for several reasons. It reinforces the protections of the First Amendment for public school employees, particularly regarding their religious expressions. The decision highlights the importance of evaluating employer motivations in cases of alleged discrimination and retaliation.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, where employees may feel their religious beliefs are being targeted in the workplace. It also underscores the necessity for employers to provide clear and unbiased reasons for employment actions, especially when those actions may appear to be influenced by an employee's religious views.

What's Next

The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen how the Douglas County School District will respond to the Tenth Circuit's ruling. There are no indications in the court filing about whether the School District plans to appeal this decision.