Court sides against Florida mom who sued child’s school district over OnlyFans controversy

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. – An Orange County judge has ruled against a woman who sued the public school district after an anonymous tip that she modeled for OnlyFans led to her being told she could no longer volunteer at her child’s elementary school.

Victoria Triece sued Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) in 2023 after being told in 2021 that she would not be allowed to volunteer in the classroom at Sand Lake Elementary School. In that time, things soured further between Triece and the district, according to court documents filed toward the end of January which describe what happened to explicit pictures from Triece’s OnlyFans which were sent anonymously to the school’s principal by a person identifying themselves only as a concerned parent.

(PREVIOUS COVERAGE | STORY CONTINUES BELOW)

The principal called her direct supervisor to seek guidance on how to proceed, the documents state, adding the email was not sent or shown to anyone else until the district received public records requests around the time a press release was published by Triece’s attorney, Mark NeJame, and the news spread. OCPS complied with the public records requests and produced the anonymous email with the images attached, according to the court documents.

Triece’s lawsuit sought summary judgment on the following counts:

1. That she had a due process right to volunteer in the district’s ADDitions Program and to appeal the decision to remove her.
2. That OCPS violated her constitutional right to privacy under the Florida Constitution by not allowing her to volunteer in the school.
3. That she was entitled to tort damages from OCPS alleging the district disclosed her images to staff and employees who were not in need of the information.
4. That she was entitled to statutory damages from OCPS alleging the district violated Florida Statute § 748.049 (sexual cyberharassment) by producing her images in response to the public records requests.

According to the court documents, the judge on Jan. 29 sided against Triece on each count for the following reasons:

1. Triece does not have a right to volunteer at the school or appeal her removal, due in large part to how the ADDitions Program policy “does not include any language that confers any right or benefit upon an individual to participate in the program, to remain in the program, or to appeal a removal decision,” the documents state. Additionally, Triece “did not request to file, nor actually filed an appeal of the removal decision” and instead filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which was denied, according to the documents.
2. While the Florida Constitution does guarantee Triece a right to privacy, specifically when it comes to protecting the right to raise children, Triece cited “no authority to support her position that her constitutional right to privacy guarantees her the right to volunteer in a public school,” the documents state.
   1. “The record before the Court does not contain any evidence that supports Plaintiff’s assertion that her right to raise her child has been constitutionally impaired. On the contrary, the evidence in the record shows that Plaintiff is free to attend school-related activities with her children,” reads an excerpt of Page 12.
3. The documents state Triece provided no evidence — instead, making the claim “on information and belief” — that the district “disseminated sexually explicit images of (her) to staff and employees of the (district) without the consent of (Triece).” When the images were emailed between district employees, it was found to be for the purpose of carrying out official OCPS business, according to the documents. Additionally, the district “was under constitutional and statutory obligation to produce (Triece’s) images in response to public records requests that OCPS received from (her) own counsel and from the news media,” the documents state.
4. In Triece’s claim that the district’s actions violated Florida’s Sexual Cyberharassment Law, the court determined that the pictures’ dissemination did not fall within definitions of what’s more commonly referred to as “revenge porn,” i.e. “the publication of sexually-explicit images of a person on the Internet without his or her consent.”
   1. “The record in this case shows that this is not a case of revenge porn, where, for example, an ex-boyfriend published images of Plaintiff on the internet. The record also shows that OCPS’s disclosure was for a legitimate purpose and a person is only liable under the statute if the disclosure by that person was for a non-legitimate purpose,” reads an excerpt of Page 19.

News 6 has reached out to NeJame for comment.

Get today’s headlines in minutes with Your Florida Daily: