Chippewa Valley Schools spent $30K fighting mother who spoke at public meeting

When Sandra Hernden showed up at a school board meeting to oppose remote learning policies that harmed her special-needs son, the school reported her to the U.S. Department of Justice and attacked her character.

The Chippewa Valley Schools district also tried to get Hernden fired from her job as a police officer, she said.

Hernden sued the district. She sought $3 and an apology. Instead, the district spent $30,000 on legal fees, according to a document that Michigan Capitol Confidential obtained through a records request. The lawsuit climbed the legal system to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined in March to hear the case, putting an end to a four-year legal battle.

“What a waste of resources and money,” Hernden told CapCon in a phone interview. “I didn’t even want the $3.”

Her son is now a high school graduate and works as a carpenter. “He is truly living his best life right now,” she told CapCon. 

Hernden serves as a trustee of L’Anse Creuse Public Schools. Her experience fighting against the Chippewa Valley gave her valuable experience to advocate for other kids’ parents, she told CapCon.

“Parents need a seat at the table,” Hernden said. “They need to be included in discussions and education. And I think that’s one of the reasons I got elected.”

“It put parents on the map when it came to kids’ education because, for so long, educators and the education system said parents weren’t involved. ... I think we’ve set the tone and the precedent that we’re here to stay, we’re not an obstacle, and at some point, you’re going to have to come to the table and treat us as a valued partner.”

Cost FOIA[45]_Redacted Copy by mcclallen

The Macomb County district defended its chosen path. It won in multiple courts, Diane Blain, director of school and community relations, told CapCon in an email.

“Chippewa Valley Schools maintains liability insurance for lawsuits that may be filed against the district,” Blain wrote. “The insurance policy maintained by the district has a deductible, similar to insurance policies for automobiles or homes. As with any lawsuit that may be filed against the District, the insurance carrier was notified when a First Amendment retaliation claim was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The insurance carrier assigns legal counsel, who defends the district’s interests in the matter. The plaintiff in the case claimed the defendants took retaliatory action against her in response to speech she had made concerning the district and its Board of Education. The defendants denied the allegations and maintained that no adverse action was taken against plaintiff. As discussed below, the litigation included multiple steps. Therefore, the district did meet its deductible in defense of this matter.”

Blain also told CapCon:

”On September 30, 2024, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and entered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court denied the petition, leaving the dismissal in place and concluding the litigation.

”The district prevailed at every level — the trial court, the court of appeals, and the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case. The case is now closed,” Blain concluded.