Christian Teacher’s Student Pronoun Appeal Tests Hardship Limits

The Seventh Circuit will consider Wednesday a Christian teacher’s appeal challenging the withdrawal of a religious accommodation from using transgender students’ preferred names and pronouns, giving the court a chance to chart a path for other cases.

The primary issue before the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will be whether allowing John Kluge to address all students by their last names only imposed an “undue hardship” on Brownsburg Community School Corp. The US Supreme Court recently clarified the undue-hardship test under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Groff v. DeJoy.

Other public and private employers are facing or have faced similar suits. Attorneys familiar with Kluge’s case expect more litigation in this area and say a ruling could influence cases elsewhere, especially in the public-school context.

Groff held that undue hardship is determined by assessing an accommodation’s impact on an employer’s overall business, and Brownsburg’s business is education, Nathan Maxwell of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc. said. The school district says that includes providing a safe and inclusive learning environment for all and it should have a strong say in setting its mission, Maxwell said.

“This a leading-edge case,” as Groff left open how to analyze undue hardship with regard to an accommodation’s effect on third parties, Alan J. Reinach of Church State Council said. But Groff did say hostility of others toward a workers’ religious views or accommodation isn’t enough to deny an accommodation.

“This case could fit that,” Reinach said.

‘Real, Not Speculative’

Kluge says the last-names-only concession should’ve remained in place because his faith prohibits him from promoting gender dysphoria. The accommodation respected transgender students’ interests because it required him to treat everyone the same, the former music and orchestra teacher says.

But the Indiana school district says a series of complaints showed it disrupted the learning environment at Brownsburg High School. The harm that caused transgender and other students established undue hardship under Groff. So, too, did the legal liability it risked if Kluge continued to avoid using transgender students’ designated names and pronouns in the face of those complaints, it says.

An Indianapolis federal judge agreed in a ruling that denied Kluge a trial. That came after the Seventh Circuit vacated its earlier approval of summary judgment against him and remanded for reconsideration in light of Groff, which was handed down while Kluge was seeking a rehearing before the full appeals court.

“A hardship needs to be real, not speculative,” to be undue under Title VII, Ray D. Hacke of Pacific Justice Institute said. And so long as a teacher isn’t actively antagonizing students, the First Amendment broadly protects that teacher from being compelled to speak a view that’s contrary to their religion, Hacke said.

An employer can’t discriminate against one group to appease another, the lawyer said. If there’s a way to accommodate religion without discriminating against LGBTQ+ students, an employer needs to do that, he said.

Unique Situation

Lambda Legal’s Maxwell and Tina Dukandar of Jackson Lewis PC said they believe the lower court was on solid footing in finding the necessary showing—"substantial increased costs"—was made.

“What makes this case special” is the public-school context, Dukandar said. Brownsburg’s funding under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments could have been jeopardized by substantial and disruptive litigation brought by someone harmed by Kluge’s accommodation, she said.

Not using transgender students’ pronouns or names affected children under the age of 18, who were still developing, Dukandar said. That’s why Brownsburg focused on safety, support, and inclusion, she said.

Kluge’s workplace was unique as Brownsburg’s business purpose, unlike a private employer’s, isn’t to make money, Maxwell said. Transgender students have been historically oppressed and the district court found it wasn’t true that Kluge treated everyone the same. Students said they knew why he was only using last names, Maxwell said.

The case is an opportunity for the Seventh Circuit to examine Groff’s business-impact focus in the public-school setting, the Lambda lawyer said.

A ruling could also provide guidance on how much more than a “de minimis” burden—the standard Groff rejected—is needed, Maxwell said.

‘Accommodation the Norm’

There needs to be a really strong showing of harm because, according to the Supreme Court, “accommodation of religion is the norm,” Reinach said.

That the accommodation here treated all students the same goes a long way, Reinach said. It seems remote that it would’ve spurred a lawsuit because there was no overt harassment, he said.

Accommodations exempt employees from an employment requirement, Hacke said. Public schools aren’t different from other employers in that regard, he said.

Alliance Defending Freedom and Michael J. Cork of Indianapolis represent Kluge. Church Church Hittle & Antrim represents Brownsburg.

The case is Kluge v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp., 7th Cir., No. 24-01942, oral argument 1/22/25.