Marisol Arroyo-Castro

Marisol Castro has taught in the Connecticut public schools for 32 years. For the last 10 years, while teaching in the New Britain School District, she has placed a crucifix by her desk along with other personal items such as student artwork and a church calendar. As a devout Catholic, the crucifix reminds her to pray and helps her remain calm throughout the day as she faithfully teaches her students.

But then, in early December 2024, Marisol was brought into a meeting with the vice principal and abruptly told that unless she removed the crucifix by her desk by 8:00 a.m. the following Monday morning she would be charged with insubordination. In a follow up email to her, the vice principal said, “During the meeting, … I shared that any permanent displays of religious symbols are prohibited from public schools, based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Devastated, she felt she could not violate her religious conscience and remove it but feared that her retirement, after years of teaching, would be in jeopardy. Four days later, she met with the principal, vice principal, chief of staff, and a union representative. The principal told her that the cross was just an idol. To her as a Catholic, that was offensive. The chief of staff suggested she put the crucifix in a drawer, but Marisol explained that she would feel bad, like she was putting Jesus in a drawer. The union rep suggested a compromise: move the crucifix to a place where the students won’t see it.

The group went to her classroom and told her to move the crucifix under her desk. After she did so, Marisol started to sob, feeling as though she “hid it under a bushel,” rather than letting her light shine. After many tears and prayer, she felt her sincere beliefs would be violated by following the school’s directives, so the next day she returned the crucifix to its original location.

The next day, Marisol received a letter of reprimand, explaining that her actions were “insubordinate.” The principal visited her classroom and told her that she should remove the crucifix to properly “live out [her] faith” and exhorted her to “give Caesar what is Caesar’s.” When she responded that she could not in good conscience remove the crucifix, she was then suspended without pay for two-days. The school hoped that she would realize it was in her best interest to comply and hang the crucifix under her desk in a place the school administration called her “private space.” Now she is on administrative leave during the grievance process.

In the personal space next to their desks, other teachers display photos of family and friends, images of Wonder Woman and Baby Yoda, a miniature of the Mona Lisa, New England Patriots football team pennant, inspirational quotes, a photograph of a statue of the Virgin Mary, and a mug referencing a Bible verse.

In January of this year, First Liberty and the law firm WilmerHale sent a letter to officials at the New Britain School District in Connecticut on behalf of Marisol, demanding that the school reinstate her after she was placed on administrative leave. When school officials refused to end Marisol’s suspension, attorneys filed a federal lawsuit.

Then in February, the School District tried to smear Marisol’s name by releasing internal documents about her to the media. Because these documents were released without Marisol’s knowledge or consent, this action was in direct violation of Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act. As a result, attorneys sent a letter to the School District insisting that they comply with Connecticut law and stop releasing confidential administrative records to the media.

In March, after Marisol was involuntarily transferred to a non-teaching position, attorneys filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court and a Title VII complaint with the EEOC alleging religious discrimination and retaliation by the Consolidated School District of New Britain in Connecticut.

In the memorandum of law supporting a preliminary injunction, First Liberty Institute and WilmerHale attorneys explain, “In Kennedy, the Supreme Court made clear that school officials cannot use a mistaken understanding of the Establishment Clause to abridge the free speech and free exercise rights of school employees . . . . [T]he Court rejected the notion—supposedly rooted in the Establishment Clause—that a public school teacher’s personal religious expression must be hidden from students’ view . . . . Instead, the Court said that the Constitution and our traditions counseled ‘mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.’”

Following the motion for preliminary injunction and complaint, attorneys argued on behalf of Marisol at the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in May. Attorneys urged the District Court to put an end to the School District’s unconstitutional censorship of Marisol. 

In November, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut upheld the school’s punishment of Marisol for refusing to remove her crucifix, denying her a preliminary injunction.

Then in March 2026, First Liberty and WilmerHale filed an appeal brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on behalf of Marisol.

“As the Supreme Court has said, students and teachers do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,’” said Becky Dummermuth, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute. “Requiring a teacher to hide her personal religious expression violates the First Amendment’s protections for both free exercise of religion and free speech.”

“The district court was wrong to say that Marisol Arroyo-Castro had to leave her Catholic faith at home because she is a public-school teacher,” said Kevin Gallagher, Partner at WilmerHale. “We look forward to the Second Circuit vindicating the First Amendment rights of our client.”

According to the brief, “The mere fact that Ms. Castro’s expression occurred in a classroom during the school day does not render it government speech. Ms. Castro’s rights to her own expression are not outweighed by the government’s misplaced Establishment Clause concerns or its unsubstantiated and uncommunicated disruption rationale.”