Teacher who refused to use student’s preferred names and pronouns proceeds in trial court
A federal court in Akron ruled a teacher’s claim against her district could move forward after she resigned her employment because the district told her she had to use a student’s preferred name and pronouns. The English teacher claimed the district effectively terminated her in violation of her First Amendment rights.
In Geraghty v. Jackson Local School District Board of Education, the court found that by compelling the teacher to use students' preferred names and pronouns, the district forced the middle school teacher to utter what was not in her mind about a question of political and religious significance, and as such, the speech at issue constituted compelled speech. While the court noted that teachers do not shed their constitutional rights, they also recognized that there are certain limitations placed on public school employees.
The district argued that this speech was made pursuant to the teacher’s official duties because the teacher was required to create a safe, secure and welcoming learning environment and to comply with board policies; the speech was directly related to the teacher's job duties; the speech was in the classroom and during instruction; and the teacher’s audience was students and not the general public. The court, however, concluded that it was not enough that speech occur to students in the classroom environment. Rather, the court stated that, "compelling Geraghty to use students preferred names and pronouns had nothing to do with when and how English was taught to her students." The teacher taught Middle School ELA and not anything in regard to LGBTQ issues; as such, the speech at issue was not made pursuant to the teacher's job duties and thus, was protected by the First Amendment.
The court concluded the teacher’s free speech claim, as well as her related freedom of religion claim, could proceed against the district. The decision runs contrary to a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued in July 2024, which held that students have no First Amendment right to misgender peers. The decision is also not dispositive—it simply denied summary judgment to the school district, allowing the teacher’s claims to proceed to a jury.
The Geraghty summary judgment decision is one of the latest developments in judicial and legislative action on the rights of transgender individuals in schools. Many of these decisions and recent legislative changes seemingly conflict, and districts should consult legal counsel on the best course of action based on the individual circumstances in your district.
We will continue to keep you updated as this case develops.
Court upholds use of consent agendas
An appeals court in Columbus has upheld the use of consent agendas, provided the public body gives notice to the public in advance of the items on the consent agenda and allows members to remove items from the consent agenda at the meeting if they chose to.
Consent agendas have been a key target for Sunshine Law litigants in recent years, and the decision from the 10th District Court of Appeals in Ames v. Columbus City School District Board of Education appears to settle the question of whether consent agendas are permissible: They are.
The court found that where:
the public knew about the resolutions the Board would be voting on as part of the consent agenda,
members of the public could sign up to comment during the meeting about those resolutions, and
Board members knew they could discuss consent agenda items during the meeting, and even remove items from the consent agenda, consent agendas were permissible. Importantly, the court found “nothing in the Open Meetings Act requires a public body to discuss every issue on which the public body votes.”
Boards should review their use of consent agendas and overall notice of Board meeting agendas including consent items to ensure the public is on notice prior to the meeting of the specific items included in the consent agenda.