Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P is a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University. The University began awarding bachelor's degrees just thirty years ago. And for twenty-five of those years, P has been a fixture at the school. P had a spotless disciplinary record. P is a devout Christian. His religious convictions influence how he thinks about 'human nature, marriage, gender, sexuality, morality, politics, and social issues.' P believes that 'God created human beings as either male or female, that this sex is fixed in each person from the moment of conception, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of an individual's feelings or desires.' P believes that he cannot 'affirm as true ideas and concepts that are not true.' In 2016 the school emailed the faculty informing them that they had to refer to students by their 'preferred pronouns.' Officials confirmed that professors would be disciplined if they 'refused to use a pronoun that reflects a student's self-asserted gender identity.' The policy applied 'regardless of the professor's convictions or views on the subject.' The chair of his department, Jennifer Pauley, was derisive and scornful. Knowing that P had successfully taught courses on Christian thought for decades, she said that Christians are 'primarily motivated out of fear' and should be 'banned from teaching courses regarding that religion.' In her view, even the 'presence of religion in higher education is counterproductive.' P was using the Socratic method to lead the discussion in his course on Political Philosophy. When using that method, he addresses students as 'Mr.' or 'Ms.' He believes 'this formal manner of addressing students helps them view the academic enterprise as a serious, weighty endeavor' and 'foster[s] an atmosphere of seriousness and mutual respect.' One of the students P called on was Doe. According to P, 'no one . . . would have assumed that [Doe] was female' based on Doe's outward appearances. P responded to a question from Doe by saying, 'Yes, sir.' This was P's first time meeting Doe, and the university had not provided P with any information about Doe's sex or gender identity. After class, Doe approached P and 'demanded' that P'refer to [Doe] as a woman' and use 'feminine titles and pronouns.' P explained that he wasn't sure if he could comply with Doe's demands. Doe became hostile-circling around P at first, and then approaching him in a threatening manner: 'I guess this means I can call you a cu--.' Doe promised that P would be fired if he did not give in to Doe's demands. P reported the incident to senior university officials, including the Dean of Students and his department chair, Jennifer Pauley. University officials then informed their Title IX office of the incident. Officials from that office met with Doe and escalated Doe's complaint to Roberta Milliken, the Acting Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Dean Milliken 'advised' that he 'eliminate all sex-based references from his expression'-no using 'he' or 'she,' 'him' or 'her,' 'Mr.' or 'Ms.,' and so on. P would keep using pronouns to address most students in class but would refer to Doe using only Doe's last name. Dean Milliken accepted this compromise, apparently believing it followed the university's gender identity policy. Doe remained dissatisfied and, two weeks into the semester complained [again. Dean Milliken said that if Meriwether did not address Doe as a woman, he would be violating the university's policy. P accidentally referred to Doe using the title 'Mr.' before immediately correcting himself. Doe again complained to the university's Title IX Coordinator and threatened to retain counsel if the university didn't take action. Dean Milliken reiterated her earlier demand and threatened disciplinary action if he did not comply. P asked whether the university's policy would allow him to use students' preferred pronouns but place a disclaimer in his syllabus 'noting that he was doing so under compulsion and setting forth his personal and religious beliefs about gender identity.' Dean Milliken rejected this option out of hand. P called on Doe using Doe's last name. Doe even got a high grade in the class for his participation. Dean Milliken sent him a formal letter reiterating her demand about the pronouns. without warning, Milliken announced that she was 'initiating a formal investigation.' She claimed she received 'another complaint from a student in P's class.' It was in fact, Doe. The university's Title IX staff conducted a less-than-thorough investigation. They interviewed just four witnesses-P, Doe, and two other transgender students. They did not ask P to recommend any potential witnesses. And aside from Doe and P themselves, none of the witnesses testified about a single interaction between the two. Naturally, P had promoted a hostile environment. Formal charges were brought. Dean Milliken concluded that it was necessary to discipline P. P explained that he could not use female pronouns to refer to Doe due to his 'conscience and religious convictions.' Provost Bauer did not address P's arguments to the contrary, nor did he grapple with P's request for a religious accommodation. Shawnee State then placed a written warning in P's file. The warning reprimanded P and directed him to change the way he addresses transgender students to 'avoid further corrective actions.' The faculty union then filed a grievance on P's behalf. It asked the university to (1) vacate the disciplinary action, and (2) allow P to keep speaking in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs. A union representative, Dr. Chip Poirot, joined P to present the grievance at a hearing. From the outset, Bauer exhibited deep hostility. He repeatedly interrupted the representative and made clear that he would not discuss the academic freedom and religious discrimination aspects of the case. The union representative tried to explain the teachings of P's church and why P felt he was being compelled to affirm a position at odds with his faith. At one point during the hearing, Provost Bauer 'openly laughed.' Bauer was so hostile that the union representative 'was not able to present the grievance.' Bauer denied the grievance. Shortly after Provost Bauer denied the grievance, he was appointed interim university president. Bauer designated two of his representatives, Shawnee State's Labor Relations Director and General Counsel, to meet with P and Poirot on his behalf. The officials agreed with the union that P's conduct had not 'created a hostile educational environment.' Instead, it was a 'differential treatment' case. They equated P's religious beliefs to those of a hypothetical racist or sexist. Since the university would not accommodate religiously motivated racism or sexism, it ought not to accommodate P's religious beliefs. P filed this lawsuit. He alleged that the university violated his rights under (1) the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment; (2) the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) the Ohio Constitution; and (4) his contract with the university. The magistrate recommended dismissing all of P's federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. The district court adopted it in full. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co