‘You’re a female … you cannot do maintenance’: Former school bus driver sues Salmon School District for discrimination, wage theft

SALMON — A former school bus driver for Salmon School District No. 291 is suing the district, claiming that she was fired after asking for time off for her cancer treatment and for exposing gender discrimination and wage theft.

On April 22, Brooke Monroe filed suit against the school district, alleging gender discrimination, disability discrimination, interference with Family and Medical Leave Act rights, FMLA retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to pay wages, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

According to the lawsuit, Monroe began working for the school district as a school bus driver on Oct. 1, 2014.

Beginning in 2020, and continuing through her termination in 2025, Monroe claims in the lawsuit that she experienced “ongoing sex-based discrimination in the workplace” under the supervision of Mark Austin, the transportation department supervisor.

One claim states that in August 2024, Austin made an “explicitly discriminatory” comment to Monroe, in which he allegedly told her, “There is no way you can be a supervisor because you’re a female, and you cannot do maintenance.”

Monroe claims this statement was made in front of other employees. Other claims include that her male counterparts received better benefits and overall treatment at work than the female drivers.

“Male drivers with less seniority than Ms. Monroe were consistently given preferential treatment in trip assignments, overtime opportunities, and other work benefits,” the lawsuit claims.

Monroe says she and one other person were the only female drivers in the transportation department. In one specific situation, Monroe says that in April 2020, she and the other female driver were asked by Austin to shuttle buses for maintenance trips to Idaho Falls.

After completing what Monroe reportedly described as weeks of work, she alleges that Austin told her and her female colleague they would not be paid because they “weren’t supposed to be working during COVID.”

Monroe says she and the other female driver were never paid for this work, “while male drivers who performed similar work were consistently paid.”

Denial of wages

The lawsuit states that Monroe was denied acceptance of her time card multiple times in 2025 with little or no explanation.

In August 2024, Monroe claims her seniority was bypassed when a substitute driver was given trips ahead of her, despite her longer tenure with the district. According to the lawsuit, in November 2024, a driver with less seniority was “encouraged to take trips before Ms. Monroe had an opportunity to sign up for them.”

Monroe claims that Austin would insist that Monroe not take trips before male drivers, and that he allegedly “enforced this policy only when it benefited male workers.”

The lawsuit says that in February 2025, a male driver with less seniority than Monroe was unable to work on Valentine’s Day, so Monroe was asked to trade one of her trips with him.

Monroe reportedly responded that she would not trade but would instead cancel her personal plans and take the extra work. According to the lawsuit, Monroe’s supervisor told her that she could not have the work unless she gave the male driver the day he wanted.

Instead, Monroe says the extra work was given to another male driver who already had overtime, and he was not asked to give up any of his days.

That spring, the school district announced that it planned to separate the combined transportation supervisor and mechanic roles that Austin had filled. The lawsuit claims that Monroe was “the clear choice” to promote from within.

On June 18, 2025, Monroe says she met with Austin for five hours to discuss the duties of the supervisor position. Ultimately, Monroe declined the position due to “the district’s ongoing pattern of discrimination and the hostile work environment she had endured.”

Throughout the rest of 2025, Monroe claims the district began “arbitrarily reducing” her compensation and questioning the legitimacy of her work hours. She says in the lawsuit that she was told her training was “excessive” and that she “shouldn’t need more than five hours drive time” for certain activities.

The district reportedly revoked a $75 monthly stipend Monroe was being paid for advanced training, allegedly based on “a minor clerical error on a time card where she says she accidentally wrote ‘5/18′ instead of ‘6/18’ when documenting her hours from June 2025.”

Monroe also claims that in August 2025, the district refused to pay her for her agreed-upon training work, as she was told they “felt her training preparation time was ‘all excessive,'” despite her claim that she had been doing this for years with the district’s approval.

“Ms. Monroe has put in countless unpaid hours and spent her own money buying safety incentives for student training programs,” the lawsuit states.

Cancer treatment

In August 2025, Monroe claims the district told her that she could “not be given any accrued sick leave for the year and could not receive donated sick leave from other employees” because she wasn’t a teacher. But the lawsuit claims that Idaho law permits her to receive donated sick leave even though she is not a teacher.

Monroe says the stress and anxiety of the treatment from the district caused her to be physically ill, and on Sept. 2, 2025, she reportedly documented experiencing “nausea, vomiting and trouble sleeping.”

“The stress and anxiety of not knowing when the school will decide not to pay me for hours I’ve worked or cut my previously agreed-upon pay has caused me to get physically ill.”

On Sept. 17, Monroe says she disclosed to the district that she had been diagnosed with triple-positive HER2 breast cancer, which would require her to go through chemotherapy, surgery and extensive medical care. On the day she disclosed her diagnosis, Monroe says she requested FMLA leave for her cancer treatment as she was “sicker than expected and not recovering well from her treatments,” according to the lawsuit.

Monroe reportedly requested extended leave-of-absence forms and “specifically sought protection of her position and insurance benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

On Sept. 24, Monroe says she received a health care provider certification form from her oncologist, stating that during treatment, she would be rendered incapable of performing essential job functions, specifically the ability to drive for long periods. Her oncologist reportedly wrote in the form that she would be unable to work until February 2026.

According to the lawsuit, the district then denied Monroe’s FMLA request, stating that she did not meet eligibility requirements based on her hours worked, despite having worked for the district for 11 years.

The denial letter also reportedly terminated her employment, and stated it was effective Oct. 3, 2025.

The letter from the district stated it was “unable to identify any option to extend your leave or continue district-provided insurance coverage beyond the end of October,” according to the lawsuit.

The letter also stated that when Monroe is “ready to return as a bus driver, it is very possible that a position will be available and you would be welcome to apply,” Monroe claims. Monroe believes that the timing of this “demonstrated that the termination was in retaliation for Ms. Monroe’s request for protected medical leave and her disclosure of a disability.”

Because the district would soon be terminating her, and she would lose her insurance coverage, Monroe says she was in “severe financial distress while battling a life-threatening illness.”

Over the next two months, Monroe reported the alleged discrimination claims to the Human Rights Commission, the Board of Education Ethics Committee, and the Idaho Department of Labor. By January 2026, the EEOC issued a notice of charge of discrimination, and the IHRC issued a notice of right to sue.

According to the school district, the IHRC found “no probable cause to believe discrimination occurred” and issued a “notice of administrative denial” on March 12.

Monroe is asking the court to award her damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief after a jury trial.

The school district’s response

In response to the complaint, the school district denied all negative accusations against it and also denied that Monroe “performed her duties at a high level.”

EastIdahoNews.com reached out to the district’s attorney, James Stoll, and to Monroe’s attorney, Shemia Fagan. We have not received any responses. If we do, we will update this article.