Pronoun-Objecting Christian Teacher Loses Free Speech Appeal (1)

A Christian substitute teacher who lost job opportunities after refusing to use transgender students’ pronouns failed to convince the Fourth Circuit on Wednesday to give her another shot at First Amendment claims against Maryland’s largest school district.

The teacher says Montgomery County Public Schools’ policy requiring employees to use the pronouns that match a student’s gender identity goes against her religious belief that there are only two genders and they’re set in stone at birth. But she didn’t show she’s likely to succeed on the merits of her free speech and free exercise allegations, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said in a split decision, leaving in place a lower court ruling in favor of MCPS.

A Maryland federal district court properly dismissed her claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Judge Robert B. King said. Kimberly Ann Polk failed to “allege any conduct or statement by the Board that evinces a ‘beneath-the-surface’ hostility toward those holding particular religious views,” King said. Judge Stephanie D. Thacker joined in the decision.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissented, stating that Polk is likely to succeed on the merits of her free-speech claim. MCPS’s policy is a “gross assault upon the First Amendment,” Wilkinson said.

The dispute adds guidance to the nationwide clash between some workers’ religious beliefs and school policies aimed at supporting transgender students. A different federal appeals court bolstered the employee side of the argument in 2024.

Polk alleges MCPS, which serves 160,000 students in the DC suburbs, blocked her from future substitute jobs after she objected to a gender identity policy that requires teachers to address students with the names and pronouns that match their gender identities and not disclose those identities to unsupportive parents.

The US District Court for the District of Maryland in January 2025 denied Polk’s motion for a preliminary injunction on two First Amendment claims. The district court also dismissed those claims.

But Polk did sufficiently allege MCPS violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it failed to accommodate her beliefs, the US District Court for the District of Maryland said. The substitute maintained that she never actually interacted with transgender students while subbing and didn’t think there were many in the preschool and elementary grades she taught.

‘Unjust Ultimatum’

King said the lower court properly dismissed Polk’s claim that the policy improperly burdened her constitutionally-protected sincere religious beliefs, because “there is no mention of anything about religion.” Polk made no plausible allegations that religious hostility motivated the adoption of the policy, the court said.

Polk had claimed the policy isn’t neutral because religious individuals will feel the impact of the policy. Polk is a Christian who believes there are only two sexes, the appeals court said, but that doesn’t mean all Christians believe the same thing and that non-Christians inherently believe otherwise.

The appeals court also backed the dismissal of Polk’s claim that the policy violated her freedom of speech by forcing her to speak in a manner that violates her religious beliefs. The policy establishes duties as a public school teacher, the opinion said, and doesn’t concern speech from a private citizen. King agreed with the district court’s conclusion that conditioning Polk’s employment as a substitute teacher on her agreement to follow the MCPS policy doesn’t violate her right to free speech.

Wilkinson countered that Polk had received an “unjust ultimatum” requiring her to use transgender students’ preferred pronouns in violation of her personal convictions, or teach somewhere else. The majority’s opinion “leaves teachers completely vulnerable to becoming the unwilling mouthpieces of government messaging,” he said.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP represents MCPS. Washington-based Frederick W. Claybrook Jr., Gammon & Grange PC, and the National Legal Foundation represent Polk.

The case is Polk v. Montgomery Cnty., 4th Cir., No. 25-01136, 1/28/26.