FBI Employee Allegedly Fired For Displaying a Gay Pride Flag at Work

I have been writing at the intersection of contracts law and constitutional law for the past few years. See, for example posts here, here, here, here, here, and here. Aside from many blog posts, I also published two pieces focused on cases where contractual obligations clashed with First Amendment protections. When contracts rights go up against free speech, they sometimes prevail. Going up against Free Exercise claims, including Free Exercise claims dressed up as freedom of expression claims (303 Creative, Chiles v. Salazar), contracts rights and statutory protections get steamrolled. So how about freedom of expression v. MAGA?

Last week, Victoria Bisset reported in The Washington Post on David Maltinsky’s wrongful termination suit brought against Kash Patel, Kim Bondi, and the FBI. The story that the complaint tells is cinematic. According to the complaint, Mr. Maltinsky was inspired to join the FBI by the events of September 11, 2001, which took place when Mr. Maltinsky was just eleven years old. Less than eight years later, Mr. Maltinsky joined the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office (LAFO), where he worked for sixteen years until he was terminated in October of this year.

Mr. Maltinsky’s specialty was cyber-security. He received various trainings to help him develop his skills relating to information technology so that he could better assist the FBI. He was a member of teams that investigated and exposed various high-profile criminal operations both nationally and internationally.

Mr. Maltinsky aspired to be an FBI special agent. He. applied to and was accepted by the FBI’s Special Agent training academy at Quantico, Virginia. He began that training in June of this year. Sixteen weeks into his nineteen-week course at Quantico, according to the complaint, Mr. Maltinsky was handed an envelope containing a termination letter signed by Kash Patel. The letter explains that Mr. Maltinsky “exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in [his] work area during [his] previous assignment at the Los Angeles Field Office.”

After the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in 2016, in which 49 people were killed and a further 58 were wounded, Mr. Maltinsky, a gay man, devoted himself to supporting the FBI’s diversity initiatives in the hopes of helping the FBI to better combat anti-LGBTQ attacks in the future. The FBI rewarded him with service awards in 2020 and 2022. He was given two pride flags that had flown on the LAFO flagpole in 2021. He displayed one of those flags at his desk. Mr. Maltinsky believes that the flag was the “political signage” referenced in his termination letter. He claims that there was no other political signage in his work space.

In 2025, a LAFO employee reported a concern about the pride flag in Mr. Maltinsky’s work space. His superiors investigated and found that the display was perfectly permissible and appropriate. When Mr. Maltinsky moved on to Quantico in June 2025, he cleared out his workspace and removed the pride flag. Not good enough for Kash Patel, apparently.

Mr. Maltinsky alleges two causes of action under the First Amendment — one for unlawful retaliation and one for viewpoint discrimination. He alleges two causes of action under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, claiming that the principle of equal protection was violated when he was targeted for the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and for being a gay man. Mr. Maltinsky seeks either a declaratory judgment or a writ of mandamus. He has requested a jury trial.

I looked into some case law about people suing federal investigative and intelligence agencies for wrongful termination during the War on Terror. Back then, the government would assert the State Secrets Privilege and get the claims dismissed. If Mr. Maltinsky’s termination letter cited no ground for his termination other than “political signage,” he has a shot at some sort of relief, although reinstatement seems unlikely before 2029. I suspect that the FBI can come up with additional grounds. Even if it doesn’t, I would expect a court to exercise great restraint in questioning the FBI’s personnel decisions. That’s too bad, as I would feel safer if Mr. Maltinsky could continue to use his skills to help protect the United States and its citizens.