A teacher in the United States who was forced to resign after refusing to use a student’s preferred names and pronouns has secured a partial win in her lawsuit against the school district.

A federal judge in Ohio in the United States has ruled that the school district may have violated the teacher’s First Amendment rights. Vivian Geraghty, a devout Christian, argued that using names and pronouns that do not align with biological sex contravenes her religious beliefs. After a series of meetings, she was told her refusal would count as insubordination, leading to her resignation.

Ms Geraghty filed a lawsuit claiming her First Amendment rights were violated. Specifically, she argued that the school district retaliated against her for exercising free speech, compelled her to engage in speech against her beliefs, and infringed on her religious freedom. The lawsuit also challenged the district's policies regarding the social transition of students as overly broad and vague.

The judge partially ruled on the case, noting that Ms Geraghty’s speech was not part of her official duties and that the district's policy was not applied neutrally. However, the judge held off on deciding other key legal issues, and factual disputes remain unresolved. Some claims were dismissed, but others will proceed to a jury trial.

While this decision does not represent a comprehensive ‘win’ for Ms Geraghty, the pronouncement by the judge that the preferred pronoun policy is ‘not neutral’ and is ‘compelled speech’ is significant.

It echoes the findings of the Cass Review in the United Kingdom, a significant review of gender services for children commissioned by the National Health Service which found that the social transitioning of children is not a neutral intervention, but rather one with the potential to profoundly impact a child’s psychological functioning and long-term outcomes.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing Ms Geraghty, arguing that the school failed to propose other possible solutions such as moving the teacher to a different classroom or having her address her students using their surnames. ADF also argued that the district did not fairly enforce its pronoun policy.

The ADF has summarised the issues in the case as follows:

“The school has both controlled and compelled Ms Geraghty’s speech by punishing her for not personally validating the preferred message of the school. The First Amendment protects the right to differ in personal conviction and religious belief, and the school has violated these fundamental constitutional rights. ADF has filed a lawsuit against the school to vigilantly protect the constitutional freedoms of teachers to do their jobs without violating convictions and without fear of punishment”.

Logan Spena, the group’s legal counsel said:

“The school tried to force Vivian to recite as true the school’s viewpoint on issues that go to the foundation of morality and human identity, like what makes us male or female, by ordering her to personally participate in the social transition of her students”.

Similarly, here in Australia, HRLA client Dr Jillian Spencer is challenging the requirement of her employer to use preferred pronouns and names as well as to keep all clinical records according to a patient’s preferred gender identity. She has lodged a complaint with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the basis that she should have a right as a doctor to object to the unscientific “affirmation” model of care for children:

“I became very concerned about the potential harm our hospital was doing in immediately using preferred pronouns, that unquestioningly affirms a child’s perceived identity and sets them on a treatment pathway of medical intervention that purports to transition a young person into an identity that they are likely to outgrow if interventions of this kind are not applied.”

The relentless activism of those promoting gender ideology is impacting ordinary people both here in Australia and overseas in countries like the United States. Compelled speech contravenes a person’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression, speech and religion. It is important to push back against attempts to limit those freedoms in such intrusive ways.

HRLA represents ordinary Australians like Dr Jillian Spencer who find themselves penalised for acting in accordance with their consciences and beliefs.