WoLF Files Amicus Brief in Support of Fired “I Resolve” Teachers

The brief to the Ninth Circuit in the case of Damiano v. Grants Pass School District argues that discussion of issues that impact women and girls must be protected speech as a matter of public concern

Should two middle school educators in Oregon have been fired over their proposal for common-sense gender identity policies in schools?

That is the question at the heart of Damiano v. Grants Pass School District, the case brought by 7th grade science teacher Katie Medart and Assistant Principal Rachel Damiano, who were fired by the school board after they launched their “I Resolve” public policy campaign.

WoLF has been paying close attention to this case from the beginning, given the serious free speech implications and the impact these firings have on women and girls.

In 2021, over 1,000 WoLF supporters signed our petition in support of Rachel and Katie. Now, WoLF has submitted an Amicus Brief to the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of the teachers’ free speech. (Read the full brief here!)

Case Background: Rachel and Katie fired after internal backlash to “I Resolve” campaign

After learning about new “gender identity” policies that would be forced on schools and teachers with the passage of the Equality Act, changes to Title IX, and state and local policies, Rachel and Katie created a website and video explaining their proposed alternative policies, which they called “I Resolve”. The proposals included separating bathrooms based on “anatomical” sex (male or female), and requiring parental permission for any name or pronoun change.

The Grants Pass School District claims that Rachel and Katie were fired after the launch of “I Resolve” for creating a “disturbance” to the school. However, court documents from the case reveal that other staff in the school district played a major role in stirring up controversy when they learned about “I Resolve.”

WoLF’s Legal Arguments: Speech on Issues that Impact Women and Girls Must be Protected

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.

Addressing the harm of “gender identity” policies to women and girls

While the lawyers for Rachel and Katie rely primarily on religious discrimination in their arguments, WoLF focuses on the way “gender identity” policies harm women and girls:

“‘This policy dismantles single-sex spaces, opens up female student-athletics to male athletes, and compels demonstration of agreement with a doctrine that says stereotypes define women and girls; and that being feminine and being female are intertwined or synonymous. This belief is offensive and harmful to women and antithetical to civil rights jurisprudence.” (pg. 22)

WoLF also addresses the ways in which the ideology underlying gender identity is homophobic, often specifically targeting lesbians, pointing out how claims that sex-based policies are “anti-LGBT” falsely conflates groups which often have divergent interests.

Protecting women’s right to discuss issues that matter to us

WoLF argues that the rights of women and girls depend on the legal recognition of sex, and the erasure of sex though “gender identity” policies is a matter of public concern. Speech on issues related to matters of public concern is especially important to protect under the First Amendment.

“Women have long faced censorship, harassment, and violations of their rights when they speak out on issues that impact them as a class. When women advocate for their rights it is often disruptive. Or, as feminist author Naomi Wolf put it, “Democracy is disruptive… there is no right in a democratic civil society to be free of disruption.” (pg. 7-8)

By adding these women-focused arguments to the court record, WoLF ensures that opposition to gender identity is not falsely perceived as only coming from a religious perspective — but rather comes from a feminist understanding, based in material reality, of the need to protect the rights of women and girls.

The Ninth Circuit is a Key Battleground for Women’s Rights

We’re seeing more and more cases like this in the Ninth Circuit (which includes the entire Western United States). Last year, WoLF won a great victory with Green v. MUSA, hopefully creating a precedent for the protection of women’s spaces. What happens here could also have implications for Chandler v. CDCR, the case spearheaded by WoLF to protect incarcerated women — which also includes First Amendment violations and takes place in the Ninth Circuit.

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!