Current:Home > MarketsVirginia court revives lawsuit by teacher fired for refusing to use transgender student’s pronouns -FundPrime
Virginia court revives lawsuit by teacher fired for refusing to use transgender student’s pronouns
View
Date:2025-04-12 13:00:11
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A lawsuit filed by a Virginia high school teacher who was fired after he refused to use a transgender student’s pronouns was reinstated Thursday by the state Supreme Court.
Peter Vlaming, a former French teacher at West Point High School, sued the school board and administrators at West Point High School after he was fired in 2018. A judge dismissed the lawsuit before any evidence was heard in the case. But the Supreme Court overturned that ruling and said the lawsuit can proceed to trial.
Vlaming claimed in his lawsuit that he tried to accommodate a transgender student in his class by using his masculine name and avoiding the use of pronouns, but the student, his parents and the school told him he was required to use the student’s male pronouns.
Vlaming said he could not use the student’s pronouns because of his “sincerely held religious and philosophical” beliefs “that each person’s sex is biologically fixed and cannot be changed.” Vlaming also said he would be lying if he used the student’s pronouns.
His lawsuit, brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, alleged that the school violated his constitutional right to speak freely and exercise his religion. The school board argued that Vlaming violated the school’s anti-discrimination policy.
All seven justices of the state Supreme Court agreed that two of Vlaming’s claims should move forward to trial: his claim that his right to freely exercise his religion was violated under the Virginia constitution and his breach of contract claim against the school board.
“Absent a truly compelling reason for doing so, no government committed to these principles can lawfully coerce its citizens into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Justice D. Arthur Kelsey wrote in the majority opinion, joined by three other justices.
But the court was split on some aspects of the lawsuit. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas Mann, joined by two other justices, wrote that the majority’s opinion on Vlaming’s free-exercise-of-religion claim was overly broad and “establishes a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law by claiming a religious justification for their failure to follow either.”
L. Steven Emmert, an appellate attorney and publisher of the website Virginia Appellate News & Analysis, said the main dispute between the majority and the dissenting justices “is the extent to which the individual’s beliefs can overcome the government’s interests.”
“The majority said only where the public safety and order is at stake can the government restrict someone’s speech and their free exercise of religion, and this case doesn’t rise to that level,” Emmert said.
Vlaming’s attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Christopher Schandevel, said Vlaming was well-liked by his students and “did his best to accommodate their needs and requests.”
“But he couldn’t in good conscience speak messages that he doesn’t believe to be true, and no school board or government official can punish someone for that reason,” Schandevel said.
During arguments before the state Supreme Court in November 2002, Alan Schoenfeld, an attorney who represents the school board and school administrators, said Vlaming’s speech was part of his official teaching duties and his refusal to use the student’s pronouns clearly violated the anti-discrimination policy.
”A public school employee is not at liberty to declare that he will not comply with a neutrally applicable policy that is part of his duties as a classroom teacher,” he said.
Schoenfeld did not immediately respond to a telephone message Thursday. School board Chair Elliot Jenkins and Vice-Chair Laura Shreaves did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on the ruling.
Alliance Defending Freedom has brought at least six similar lawsuits — three in Virginia, and one each in Ohio, Kansas and Indiana.
veryGood! (167)
Related
- Trump's 'stop
- AI ProfitPulse, Ushering in a New Era of Blockchain and AI
- Crews battling 2 wildfires in New Jersey
- Dexter Quisenberry: The Leap in Integrating Quantitative Trading with Artificial Intelligence
- Travis Hunter, the 2
- Democrat Kim Schrier wins reelection to US House in Washington
- Jury convicts man of killing girlfriend and hiding her body in rural Minnesota
- NFL MVP odds: Ravens' Lamar Jackson, Derrick Henry among favorites before Week 10
- Juan Soto to be introduced by Mets at Citi Field after striking record $765 million, 15
- AI DataMind: The Rise of SW Alliance
Ranking
- The company planning a successor to Concorde makes its first supersonic test
- Cillian Murphy takes on Catholic Church secrets in new movie 'Small Things Like These'
- West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice appoints wife Cathy to state education board after U.S. Senate win
- A Texas border county backed Democrats for generations. Trump won it decisively
- 'No Good Deed': Who's the killer in the Netflix comedy? And will there be a Season 2?
- Freshman Democrat Val Hoyle wins reelection to US House in Oregon’s 4th Congressional District
- Ravens to debut 'Purple Rising' helmets vs. Bengals on 'Thursday Night Football'
- Caroline Ellison begins 2-year sentence for her role in Bankman-Fried’s FTX fraud
Recommendation
DeepSeek: Did a little known Chinese startup cause a 'Sputnik moment' for AI?
Halle Bailey Seemingly Calls Out Ex DDG Over Parenting Baby Halo
Democrat Laura Gillen wins US House seat on Long Island, unseating GOP incumbent
Interpreting the Investment Wisdom and Business Journey of Damon Quisenberry
A South Texas lawmaker’s 15
Bachelor's Kelsey Anderson Addresses Joey Graziadei Relationship Status Amid Personal Issues
AI DataMind: Practical Spirit Leading Social Development
Jason Kelce provides timely reminder: There's no excuse to greet hate with hate