Lambda Legal this week filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to once again affirm a lower court ruling holding that a Indiana public school was not required under Title VII to accommodate a request by an anti-LGBTQ teacher to disregard the gender identities of his students because doing so affirmatively disparaged and harmed students.

The district court, according to a Lambda Legal press release, “recognized that allowing a teacher to refuse to use names and pronouns consistent with students’ gender identities caused real harm to transgender students and disrupted the learning environment.”

Nathan Maxwell, senior attorney for Lambda Legal, said, “Affirming a transgender student’s identity isn’t just an act of respect, it’s a lifeline. By honoring students’ identities, we help them feel seen, valued, and supported, which in turn reduces psychological distress and allows them to excel in school and in society.

“Educators hold a vital role in every student’s life,” Maxwell continued, “and when they fail to acknowledge or respect a student’s gender identity, it sends a harmful message to the entire student body — that it’s acceptable to marginalize and bully their transgender peers. By affirming each student’s identity, educators not only protect their well-being but also foster a culture of respect and inclusion, setting a powerful example for everyone.”

Before school started in 2017, Brownsburg Community School Corporation enacted a policy instructing teachers to refer to students using the names recorded in the school’s “Power School” database, which allows parents of transgender students, with the approval of a health care professional, to enter a name and pronouns for their child that is consistent with their gender identity.

But teacher John Kluge, claiming a religious objection, requested an accommodation allowing him to refer to students by their last name only. He also refused to refer to several transgender students in his class by their names because he believed the names did not match their birth-assigned sex.

After complaints from students, parents and other teachers about Kluge’s targeted use of the accommodation, BCSC withdrew the accommodation, finding that the practice was detrimental not only to transgender students’ well-being, but also to the learning environment for other students and faculty.

Kluge was unwilling to follow the school’s policy and so resigned. He then filed a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation suit.

The district court, however, granted the school summary judgment, concluding that the school could not accommodate Kluge’s religious belief without imposing a substantial undue hardship on the school’s conduct of its business of educating all students. The court also rejected Kluge’s retaliation claim.

The Seventh Circuit has already affirmed a similar outcome in this case, but the Supreme Court later issued its opinion in Groff v. Dejoy, changing the standard for assessing employees’ requests for religious accommodations under Title VII. In light of the new standard, the Seventh Circuit vacated its opinion and sent the case back to the district court.

The district court reviewed the evidence under the new standard and again ruled in favor of BCSC, and against Kluge, with Kluge appealing that decision.

Lambda Legal filed its amicus brief this week urging the Seventh Circuit to once again affirm the district court’s decision, which, Lambda says, “correctly found that BCSC was not required under Title VII to grant Kluge’s requested accommodation because it disparaged and harmed students and created substantial hardship for BCSC by interfering with and obstructing its ability to fulfill its educational mission.”

You can read Lambda Legal’s brief here.

— Tammye Nash