The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a school district acted lawfully when it withdrew a teacher’s requested religious accommodation to call students by their last names instead of using transgender students’ preferred names or pronouns. The Court opined that the accommodation caused harm to transgender students, other students, and the educational environment generally. The case is Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp.
Case Background
In 2014, plaintiff was hired by the defendant school district (the “School District”) to serve as the high school’s music and orchestra teacher. Prior to the start of the 2017-2018 school year, school administrators considered practices and policies to address the challenges and needs of transgender students. Plaintiff and three other teachers expressed their religious objections to referring to transgender students by names or pronouns that were inconsistent with those assigned to students at birth. As a result, the school administration adopted a policy requiring teachers to use the names and pronouns found in the School District’s database. The School District’s policy required that transgender students who wished to change their names, gender markers, or pronouns in the database were permitted to do so but had to provide the School District with a letter from their parents and health care provider regarding the need for the change.
At the start of the 2017-2018 school year, the School District granted plaintiff’s requested accommodation that he be allowed to refer to all students by their last name only – “like a gym teacher.” Plaintiff had two transgender students assigned to his classes. Within a month following the School District’s agreement to plaintiff’s accommodation, complaints were made to school administrators that plaintiff’s practice of referring to students by their last name only was disrespectful, insulting and made them feel isolated and targeted. There were also complaints from students that plaintiff occasionally slipped and used first names for non-transgender students.
In December 2017 and January 2018, school administrators repeatedly met with plaintiff to discuss how the accommodation of using only students’ last names was not working because the students’ learning environment was being disrupted. Also in January 2018, the School District advised all faculty that while the practice of utilizing students’ last names was allowed for the 2017-2018 school year, moving forward, faculty would be required to use students’ first names as set forth in School District’s database. Plaintiff objected on religious grounds to using students’ names in the School District’s database and school administrators advised plaintiff that he could either comply with the name policy, resign; or be terminated.
Plaintiff resigned and subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against the School District claiming, among other claims, religious discrimination/failure to accommodation and retaliation in violation of federal civil rights laws (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
Analysis
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s religious discrimination claim, finding that the accommodation afforded the plaintiff―of only using students’ last names― was an undue hardship because it resulted in disruption to the educational environment. Additionally, this accommodation constituted an undue hardship because plaintiff was the school’s only music teacher and no other teacher could take his place.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation claim because of the length of time between plaintiff’s request for a religious accommodation and his resignation. Further, plaintiff did not rebut the School District’s legitimate reasons for withdrawing the accommodation of using students’ last names only when it proved to not be working in practice and caused harm to the students and the educational environment.
Practical Takeaways
This case is a reminder of the standard required (pursuant to Title VII) for employers when accommodating religious practices of employees. Employers are not required to accommodate employees’ religious practices that constitute an undue hardship relative to the employer’s business. Additionally, as we alerted in this post, initial accommodations made (pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act) on a religious accommodation may differ from the final decision on the same accommodation request.
If you have any questions, please contact:
- Larry Jensen at (248) 457-7850 or ljensen@hallrender.com;
- Kathyrn Jones at (248) 457-7846 or kejones@hallrender.com; or
- Your regular Hall Render attorney.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
