Trump Judge Rules Deadnaming Trans Students Teaches "Tolerance" In Bizarre Opinion

The case will still go to trial over disputes around the harm of using transgender students names and pronouns.

Akron Ohio Federal Court Building - USCourts.gov

A federal judge in Ohio, Judge Pamela A. Barker, has ruled that a teacher’s lawsuit against her school district can proceed to trial after she was fired for refusing to use two transgender students’ preferred names and pronouns. The teacher, Vivian Geraghty, argued that her Pentecostal religious beliefs prohibited her from using a student’s new name if she believed it was related to the student’s transition. Geraghty also stated that she "wanted those students out of her classroom." After refusing to accommodate the students, her principal and a representative from the school district requested her resignation, which she provided. This led to a lawsuit in which Geraghty claims she should be allowed to use a student’s "biological" name. The case has resulted in a lengthy and, at times, bizarre opinion from Barker, a Trump-appointed federal judge, conflicting with rulings from other circuits on the matter.

The case centers around Vivian Geraghty, an English teacher at Jackson Memorial Middle School. On the first day of class in 2022, a transgender student, identified as Student A, requested that Geraghty use a new name, with the full support of their parent. A similar request was made by another student, identified as Student B. Instead of accommodating the students, Geraghty ignored their requests. This led one of the students to send a polite email reminding her of their preference.

You can see that email here:

p.3 of ruling.

Ms. Geraghty continued to ignore the students' requests, acknowledging that the students "looked uncomfortable" but asserting that she was "equally uncomfortable." She spoke with a fellow teacher and mentor, explaining that she "disagreed with the students’ requests because of her religious beliefs" and that she "wanted those students out of her classroom."

Over time, the repeated deadnaming and misgendering began to take a toll on the students, leading Student A to seek support from their school counselor. The counselor forwarded a message to Geraghty, asking her to use the students' preferred names and pronouns. This prompted a meeting between Geraghty, her principal, and a school district representative. They attempted to accommodate her by requesting that she use neutral pronouns while still using the preferred names, but Geraghty refused. As a result, the officials asked for her resignation, which she provided. Even after her resignation, a union representative offered a compromise, suggesting she refer to the students by their last names—an accommodation she also refused. She again requested that the students be removed from her classroom, a demand the union declined to support.

See the following excerpt:

p.11 of ruling.

Instead, she filed a lawsuit with the help of the far-right Alliance Defending Freedom, claiming that she had a religious right to refuse to use a student’s preferred name if it conflicted with her belief that "sex is a biological function and that a person’s gender identity will always match up with their sex." The lawsuit argued that requiring her to respect a student’s preferred name constitutes compelled speech. The school district countered that the teacher had no right to impose her religious beliefs on students while acting in her official capacity as a teacher. They argued that using a student’s preferred name and pronouns is consistent with creating a "safe, supportive, and non-discriminatory environment for students," in line with the school’s mission, and that refusing to accommodate a student’s name and pronouns violates Title IX.

The judge sided with the teacher on the first and third claims, leaving only the second to be disputed at a later trial. To support this ruling, the judge issued unusual legal opinions, including the assertion that using students' preferred names and pronouns was not "pursuant to her official duties." The judge further argued that students' names "convey a message” and that it was not the teacher's responsibility to convey that message.

See the following excerpt from the ruling, where the judge argues that using a transgender person’s name is akin to making her “teach anything with regard to LGBTQ+ issues,” a bizarre argument given that it appears only applied to transgender people who change their names and not people who change their names or go by nicknames for other reasons:

p.25 of ruling

The judge also dismisses the title IX claim by stating that “looking uncomfortable” is not enough to violate title IX, and that instead, the teacher was teaching tolerance by refusing to use their name and pronouns:

p. 30 of ruling.

The judge further argued that a preferred name serves to “validate or invalidate” someone’s perceived sex or gender identity, and that the teacher has a right to use a name that is consistent with her beliefs:

p. 28 of ruling.

If this logic is upheld in higher circuit courts, it could have unintended consequences for anti-trans organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom. By granting a teacher the right to refuse to use a student's preferred name based on personal beliefs about “validating or invalidating” gender identity, the ruling could equally empower a teacher supportive of transgender students to affirm their identity against the wishes of parents who reject their child’s gender. This precedent opens the door to other troubling scenarios: if refusing to use a student's preferred name is protected as a matter of religious freedom, could a Christian teacher similarly refuse to address a Muslim student by the name Mohammed or request that they be removed from their classroom? Such outcomes would create a chaotic and inconsistent application of rights, undermining non-discrimination and equal treatment in education.

This is not the first time these issues have been addressed. Last year, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, though not governing Ohio, ruled that teachers do not have a “right to misgender” transgender students. The court found that misgendering harms transgender students and imposes an undue burden on them, rejecting claims that teachers are not acting in an official capacity when they do so (“Kluge conceded that his address of students in his classroom was part of his official duties as a teacher”, p. 63). Notably, the court also rejected the same accommodations offered to Geraghty, such as gender neutral pronouns and only using their last names, deeming them discriminatory:

“In sum, we affirm summary judgment against Kluge on his discrimination claim. Brownsburg has demonstrated as a matter of law that the requested accommodation worked an undue burden on the school’s educational mission by harming transgender students and negatively impacting the learning environment for transgender students, for other students in Kluge’s classes and in the school generally, and for faculty.”

In August 2023, another federal judge in Ohio reaffirmed that there is no right to intentionally misgender transgender students, declaring that “intentional misgendering of students constitutes verbal bullying” and that “using pronouns contrary to an individual’s preferences… evinces disrespect for the individual.” The judge concluded that “intentional misgendering creates a hostile environment for transgender students on account of their gender identity and causes a substantial disruption.”

While the judge in Geraghty’s case ruled in her favor on the first and third claims, the trial will proceed on the second claim: whether misgendering and deadnaming transgender students, even with full parental support, is harmful to them. Despite overwhelming evidence that transgender youth benefit from having their names and pronouns respected, the court leaned on testimony from Steven Levine, a highly-paid anti-trans activist and Alliance Defending Freedom favorite, to suggest that misgendering and deadnaming students might be in their best interest, regardless of parental support.

The trial will proceed at a later date.

See the full opinion here (highlights my own):

Ohio Opinion

11.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download