"On Wednesday, a federal court dismissed a lawsuit filed by an evangelical state university professor who was disciplined after repeatedly misgendering a transgender student — infractions determined to violate the university’s nondiscrimination policy. Professor Nicholas Meriwether had sued his employer, Shawnee State University, in Portsmouth, Ohio, alleging that his First Amendment rights had been infringed.
That was after he received a written warning for repeatedly referring to Jane Doe, a transgender female student, using the title “Mr.” and male pronouns, despite using correct pronouns for every other member of the class. Meriwether grieved the discipline, but the grievance was denied. He then enlisted the help of the anti-LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom to file the lawsuit against Shawnee State, arguing that his religious beliefs that gender is fixed, binary, and determined by biology from birth prevent him from acknowledging transgenderism.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, along with Adam Unikowsky of Jenner & Block LLP and Jennifer Branch of Gerhardstein & Branch Co., LPA, intervened on behalf of Jane Doe and the university’s LGBTQ student group, Sexuality and Gender Acceptance. On behalf of their clients, the lawyers moved to have the lawsuit dismissed.
The case went before Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz, of the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio, who issued a recommendation last September arguing for the lawsuit be dismissed. In her opinion, Litkovitz noted that Meriwether was given multiple opportunities to stop referring to Doe as male, and was even given the option of simply referring to Jane Doe by a first name or last name without using pronouns or formal titles.
She also rejected claims that the disciplinary action violated Meriwether’s freedom of religion, was motivated by hostility towards religion, or infringed on his freedom of speech. “Speech by a government employee is protected under the First Amendment only if the speech was made ‘as a citizen’ while addressing ‘a matter of public concern,” she wrote in her opinion. “A government employee’s speech is made ‘as a citizen’ and is protected under the First Amendment only when the speech is not ‘pursuant to [the employee’s] duties.'”
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott, of the Southern District of Ohio, dismissed Meriwether’s lawsuit, agreeing to adopt Litkovitz’s recommendation.
“The Court concludes that Meriwether failed to state a claim for violation of his rights under the United States Constitution,” Dlott wrote in her ruling. “His speech — the manner by which he addressed a transgender student — was not protected under the First Amendment. Further, he did not plead facts sufficient to state a claim for a violation of his right to free exercise of religion, for a departure from religious neutrality under Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or for a violation of his rights to due process or equal protection.”
Alliance Defending Freedom could decide to appeal Dlott’s decision within the next 30 days, but has not yet indicated what actions it plans to take next. Meanwhile, the National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a statement celebrating the lawsuit’s dismissal. “We are pleased the Court affirmed that schools can ensure that all students are able to learn and the access educational opportunities available to all students without fear of discrimination,” Asaf Orr, a senior staff attorney and the director of NCLR’s Transgender Youth Project, said.
“Since this lawsuit began, transgender students have been worried that they would have to start skipping classes or avoid particular professors because Shawnee State would no longer be able to effectively address bullying, harassment, and mistreatment of transgender students,” Jae Keniston, the president of SAGA, said in a statement. “SAGA and its members are relieved that the Court recognized the importance of Shawnee State’s anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies to transgender people on campus. This is a big step towards progress for all transgender people on Shawnee State’s campus.”
I didn’t pick that news outlet for any specific reason as many are reporting on this. I see both sides of this difficult issue. One side embraces “Life, Liberty, etc” and feels it’s within their rights to identify themselves as they choose. This includes all those that support them. The other side views it as a mental illness and ignoring their biological reality as feeding into a delusion. It’s a challenging dilemma which draws a stronger contrast when religious rights are thrown into the mix. The court chose to rule against religion as providing what seems to be a diminishing perspective to very small percentage of the population. The number should not have a factor of right and wrong.
As this trend grows, it would seem it should also bring an end to racism. At least into the world of political correctness. Good or bad with transgender participation in sports, co ed bathrooms, and early indoctrination (excuse me) education gender in itself should carry less relevance as time goes on. What is becoming the apex is how people identify themselves.
If the court is going to support that, then should the same be applied to race. If everyone has the right to identify however they want. A white man can identify as a black woman and vice versa or any other combination. This would include any benefits granted by race. Its already seen in effect with a current US senator. Like gender, other race itself has to take a back seat. Does that sound ridiculous? If so, does that ignore becoming a double standard?
That was after he received a written warning for repeatedly referring to Jane Doe, a transgender female student, using the title “Mr.” and male pronouns, despite using correct pronouns for every other member of the class. Meriwether grieved the discipline, but the grievance was denied. He then enlisted the help of the anti-LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom to file the lawsuit against Shawnee State, arguing that his religious beliefs that gender is fixed, binary, and determined by biology from birth prevent him from acknowledging transgenderism.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, along with Adam Unikowsky of Jenner & Block LLP and Jennifer Branch of Gerhardstein & Branch Co., LPA, intervened on behalf of Jane Doe and the university’s LGBTQ student group, Sexuality and Gender Acceptance. On behalf of their clients, the lawyers moved to have the lawsuit dismissed.
The case went before Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz, of the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio, who issued a recommendation last September arguing for the lawsuit be dismissed. In her opinion, Litkovitz noted that Meriwether was given multiple opportunities to stop referring to Doe as male, and was even given the option of simply referring to Jane Doe by a first name or last name without using pronouns or formal titles.
She also rejected claims that the disciplinary action violated Meriwether’s freedom of religion, was motivated by hostility towards religion, or infringed on his freedom of speech. “Speech by a government employee is protected under the First Amendment only if the speech was made ‘as a citizen’ while addressing ‘a matter of public concern,” she wrote in her opinion. “A government employee’s speech is made ‘as a citizen’ and is protected under the First Amendment only when the speech is not ‘pursuant to [the employee’s] duties.'”
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott, of the Southern District of Ohio, dismissed Meriwether’s lawsuit, agreeing to adopt Litkovitz’s recommendation.
“The Court concludes that Meriwether failed to state a claim for violation of his rights under the United States Constitution,” Dlott wrote in her ruling. “His speech — the manner by which he addressed a transgender student — was not protected under the First Amendment. Further, he did not plead facts sufficient to state a claim for a violation of his right to free exercise of religion, for a departure from religious neutrality under Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or for a violation of his rights to due process or equal protection.”
Alliance Defending Freedom could decide to appeal Dlott’s decision within the next 30 days, but has not yet indicated what actions it plans to take next. Meanwhile, the National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a statement celebrating the lawsuit’s dismissal. “We are pleased the Court affirmed that schools can ensure that all students are able to learn and the access educational opportunities available to all students without fear of discrimination,” Asaf Orr, a senior staff attorney and the director of NCLR’s Transgender Youth Project, said.
“Since this lawsuit began, transgender students have been worried that they would have to start skipping classes or avoid particular professors because Shawnee State would no longer be able to effectively address bullying, harassment, and mistreatment of transgender students,” Jae Keniston, the president of SAGA, said in a statement. “SAGA and its members are relieved that the Court recognized the importance of Shawnee State’s anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies to transgender people on campus. This is a big step towards progress for all transgender people on Shawnee State’s campus.”
I didn’t pick that news outlet for any specific reason as many are reporting on this. I see both sides of this difficult issue. One side embraces “Life, Liberty, etc” and feels it’s within their rights to identify themselves as they choose. This includes all those that support them. The other side views it as a mental illness and ignoring their biological reality as feeding into a delusion. It’s a challenging dilemma which draws a stronger contrast when religious rights are thrown into the mix. The court chose to rule against religion as providing what seems to be a diminishing perspective to very small percentage of the population. The number should not have a factor of right and wrong.
As this trend grows, it would seem it should also bring an end to racism. At least into the world of political correctness. Good or bad with transgender participation in sports, co ed bathrooms, and early indoctrination (excuse me) education gender in itself should carry less relevance as time goes on. What is becoming the apex is how people identify themselves.
If the court is going to support that, then should the same be applied to race. If everyone has the right to identify however they want. A white man can identify as a black woman and vice versa or any other combination. This would include any benefits granted by race. Its already seen in effect with a current US senator. Like gender, other race itself has to take a back seat. Does that sound ridiculous? If so, does that ignore becoming a double standard?
