A dispute over social media comments and political support during a local college trustee election has led to a federal lawsuit alleging that an employee was wrongfully terminated by her public employer in violation of her constitutional rights. Adelida Ruth Vento filed the complaint on March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Brownsville Independent School District and Superintendent Dr. Jesus H. Chavez, both individually and in his official capacity.
According to the complaint, Vento claims she was subjected to retaliation after expressing support for a candidate running against her supervisor’s superior in a May 2024 Texas Southmost College trustee election. The filing states that Vento had worked for the district for approximately twenty-two years with no prior disciplinary history before her termination. She alleges that adverse employment actions began shortly after she commented on a social media post about Support Programs Director Juan J. DeLeon, who was seeking re-election as a trustee and was opposed by Edward Camarillo.
The document outlines that Vento’s comments were made on April 19, 2024, on another person’s Facebook page during her personal time. The complaint asserts: “The post did not claim that Plaintiff was acting on behalf of the School District, or that her views represented the School District’s views.” Despite this, Vento received a verbal written warning from Supervisor Luis Troncoso on April 24, 2024, instructing her to refrain from “Inappropriate posting or use of social media that targets a school district employee or the school district.” In response to this warning, Vento wrote: “I did nothing inappropriate. I only defended an opponent (Camarillo) of my choice during election. I can’t help what others reply or post.”
Vento alleges that after submitting a formal complaint of retaliation to Superintendent Chavez and copying all members of the school board on April 26, 2024, she continued to face disciplinary action culminating in her termination. The complaint reports that Superintendent Chavez approved the recommendation for termination on May 14, 2025; Vento was terminated two days later with no specific reason provided other than “In the best interest of the district.” She contends this action followed immediately after she exercised her right under district policy to appeal the recommendation for termination.
The legal filing further details how Vento appealed through internal grievance procedures but asserts she was denied due process when she was terminated before completing these steps. According to Vento’s account, additional documents justifying her termination were introduced during grievance proceedings—documents she claims were not previously disclosed to her.
Central to Vento’s argument is that her comments constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and did not disrupt school operations or disclose confidential information. The complaint states: “Such statements reflect core First Amendment values…did not affect Plaintiff’s ability to perform her job duties as assigned.” It also alleges that policies cited by administrators regarding electronic communications were misapplied because Vento commented on someone else’s Facebook page rather than posting content herself.
The suit brings causes of action under Title 42 Section 1983 of U.S. law for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law. It argues: “Defendants…deprived Plaintiff of privileges and immunities secured…by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” specifically citing freedom of speech and association regarding political activity.
Vento seeks compensatory damages including front pay and back pay as well as equitable relief such as reinstatement to her former position. Additionally, she requests exemplary damages against Superintendent Chavez individually in an amount exceeding $1 million “to deter Defendant…from repeating such wrongful acts in the future.” The complaint also asks for reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with litigation.
Representing Adelida Ruth Vento are attorneys John L. Shergold of Hodge & Shergold LLP and Jose R. Hernandez of Law Office of Jose (Joe) R. Hernandez P.C., both based in Brownsville, Texas. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00339.
Source: 126cv00339_Adelida_Ruth_v_Brownsville_Independent_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
