John Kluge lost his teaching position in Indiana for refusing to submit to 'transgender' naming demands by school district

On Wednesday, WoLF submitted an Amicus Brief to the 7th Circuit in support of an orchestra teacher who was forced to resign in 2018 over transgender policies at Brownsburg High School in Indiana. 

Case Background: Indiana Teacher Forced to Resign For Calling Students by Last Name

During the 2017-2018 school year, officials of the Brownsburg Community School Corporation told teachers that transgender-identifying students change their names in the school's database and that teachers should “feel free” to use these new names and pronouns. John Kluge refused, citing his religious beliefs. After multiple back-and-forths with the administration, they settled on an accommodation: Kluge would call all his students by their last names, like a coach, avoiding first names and pronouns altogether. 

This accommodation worked for several months until the LGBT student group and their faculty advisor complained, prompting the administration to issue a new policy compelling teacher’s speech and revoking Kluge’s accommodation.  

Kluge is suing the school district under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. The case, Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., now goes to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals after the school district was granted a summary judgment at the district court. 

WoLF’s Amicus Brief: “Gender Ideology is Religious in Nature”

What is an Amicus Brief? 

An Amicus Brief provides an opportunity for someone who is not party to a legal case to weigh in with arguments because the issue at hand would impact them. Amicus Briefs often provide an alternative for the judges to hear new arguments in a case that can provide additional reasoning for their ruling.

These briefs can make a big difference by helping get feminist legal arguments in the court record! For example, in the case of Green v. MUSA, the judge cited WoLF’s brief in the concurring opinion, adding additional feminist context to the court’s decision to protect women-only events. 

WoLF argues that gender ideology is religious and harmful, and mandating adherence violates the First Amendment 

WoLF’s submission to the court in this case adds important feminist context: that regardless of an individual teacher’s stance, gender ideology is a religious, metaphysical even, belief system that should not be forced on the public by the government.

“A person who believes in gender identity believes that a woman is a person (male or female) who “identifies” as a woman. But a man identifying as a member of the female sex would mean identifying as a member of the reproductive class that produces eggs, gestates, and gives birth. Of course, that is impossible. This belief system acknowledges that feminine stereotypes are imposed on women (but not men) by society on the basis of sex, causing them demonstrable harm, yet it simultaneously posits that the exact same stereotype can simultaneously be cheerfully adopted as an expression of a woman’s female “gender identity.”” (pg. 11)

WoLF has made this argument repeatedly over the years, and has been involved in the cases of many similarly fired teachers including Damiano v. Grants Pass School District and Vlaming v. West Point School Board.

“Requiring the use of wrong sex pronouns mandates that the speaker make public shows of faithfulness to the spiritual beliefs of the “transgender” person.” (pg. 10)

WoLF also argues that gender ideology is specifically harmful to women, children, and LGB people. 

The brief highlights the many ways in which gender ideology harms different groups of people, including through the enforcement of regressive sex stereotypes on women and girls and the dangerous medicalization of children. WoLF cites many of the latest updates to gender medicine, including the Cass Report and other recent scientific developments which call into question the policies put in practice by schools across the country. 

“Gender ideology claims to liberate people to live as their true selves by affirming and sanctifying an internal, unverifiable gender identity that is different from one’s sex. But “living as one’s true self” in this context does not mean self- acceptance, nor does it mean challenging the injustices and oppression faced by some people whose true selves do not conform to societal expectations. “Living as one’s true self” according to gender ideology means a reworking of society and the self, requiring radical disruptions to language, biology, anatomy, and single sex spaces to accommodate a gender identity that is supposedly innate. These disruptions cause great harm to society’s most vulnerable groups: children, women—especially lesbians—and all same-sex attracted people.” (pg.12)

Read the Full Amicus Brief Here

WoLF’s Amicus Brief was submitted by WoLF Legal Director Lauren Bone, with enormous contributions from WoLF volunteer and retired Massachusetts Supreme Court Judge Elspeth Cypher and WoLF Board Treasurer and attorney Nancy Stade. 

Join the Fight Against Gender Ideology

WoLF is leading the fight to bring the feminist perspective to the courts — thanks to our generous donors! Legal advocacy is resource-intensive, and we couldn’t do it without supporters like you.

Join the fight! Donate to WoLF today to support our legal advocacy!

Note: Many of our supporters choose to give from their assets—stock gifts, grants from Donor-Advised funds, or Qualified Charitable Distributions from their IRA. Please consider if these “tax-smart” methods work better for you!