Kluge V. Brownsburg Community School

ReligionReligious AccommodationEmploymentTitle VIIIndiana7th CircuitAcademiaUndue BurdenSouthern District of Indiana

Apr 30

Written By Mack Karbon

**Brownsburg Community School** *- Brownsburg, Indiana*

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

On remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Case no. 1:19-cv-02462-JMS-KMB (Ind. S. Dist. Ct.)
Case no. 21-2475 (7th Cir.)

STATUS: ONGOING

UPDATES:
On April 30, 2024, the district court ruled in favor of the defendant school and held that teachers do not have the religious right to misname and misgender transgender students, when doing do disrupts the learning environment and makes the school vulnerable to Title IX litigation.

On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff John Kluge stated that he intended to appeal the decision to Seventh Circuit, where he will almost certainly lose again. He has yet to actually file the appeal.

BACKGROUND

In July of 2019, Plaintiff John Kluge brought a lawsuit against Brownsburg Community School after he resigned from his teaching position for refusing to follow the school’s policy on student names. The policy mandates that if a student, the student's parents, and a health care provider request that the student be called by a preferred name, that name would be entered in the school's official student database. Teachers would then be required to call the student by that name. This policy was adopted out of respect for all students, including trans students.

Mr. Kluge, a music and orchestra teacher, did not agree. He objected on religious grounds to “transgenderism” and the practice of referring to students by names other than their birth names. He specifically asked that school employees not be required to refer to transgender students using their preferred pronouns, as this would be "playing along with their psychiatric disorder" and thereby "encourage transgender students in their folly." He requested that transgender students not be permitted to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice. He further urged school administrators not to revise its student anti-discrimination and harassment policies to include "transgender, gender identity, and sexual orientation as protected classes,” as this could prevent students from talking to their transgender friends "about their need for repentance."

The school initially accommodated Kluge’s discomfort by allowing him to call all students by their last names only. However, the school withdrew the accommodation when it became apparent that the practice - which was the subject of numerous complaints from faculty and parents - was harming students and negatively impacting the learning environment. The school gave Kluge a choice: he could follow the name policy, resign, or be terminated.

Refusing to resign or follow the name policy, Kluge was placed on a suspension. During his suspension, Mr. Kluge met with school administrators and requested "the ability to talk directly to students about their eternal destination.” The school informed Kluge that this was not allowed.

Kluge subsequently submitted his resignation, adding that his decision was due to the school’s requirement that teachers call trans students by a names that “encourage[] the destructive lifestyle and psychological disorder known as gender dysphoria.”

..........................

Initial Proceedings

On July 15, 2019, Kluge filed a complaint against the school alleging discrimination, retaliation and harassment in violation of Title VII, as well as “denial of Mr. Kluge's fundamental and clearly established rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and the Indiana Constitution.

Upon the school’s Motion to Dismiss, the district court dismissed several claims, leaving only Kluge's claims for failure to accommodate and retaliation under Title VII

On July 12, 2021, the district court entered judgment for the school on both counts. The court held that the school was unable to accommodate Kluge’s religious beliefs without incurring an undue hardship. This conclusion was made using the established “more than de minimus” standard for undue hardship, which was the correct standard at the time.

Kluge appealed to the Seventh Circuit which AFFIRMED the district court’s judgment. The decision was celebrated for its central holding that teachers do not have the religious right to misname and misgender trans students.

The appellate court’s decision was short-lived. In June of 2023, the Supreme Court announced in Groff v. DeJoy that the “more than a de minimis cost” standard was incorrect in the context of Title VII undue hardship determinations; instead, religious accommodations must pose “substantial increased costs” to an employer to constitute an undue hardship.

In light of Groff, the Seventh Circuit VACATED and REMANDED its decision in Kluge. The parties cross-filed motions for summary judgment.

..........................

District Court Decision on Remand

On April 30, 2024, the district court GRANTED summary judgment for the school. The court applied the new standard set forth in Groff, which requires an employer arguing undue burden to show that “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."

In a beautifully penned portion of the decision, the district court states that:

“A public school is not a typical business; a public-school student is not a typical customer. Far from maximizing shareholder value, the stated nature of BCSC's business is providing a supportive environment for students and respecting the legitimate expectations of their parents and medical providers. Ultimately, BCSC is entitled to determine that its legitimate mission does not stop at whether some students are literally blocked from entering the schoolhouse gates; rather, that mission can legitimately extend to fostering a safe, inclusive learning environment for all students and evaluating whether that mission is threatened by substantial student harm and the potential for liability.”

The district court agreed with the school: the “last names only” accommodation stigmatized trans students, disrupted the learning environment, and was the source of numerous complaints from students, parents, and faculty. Ultimately, the accommodation prevented the school from meeting the needs of all students by fostering an inclusive learning environment, and therefore constituted an undue burden as a matter of law. The court also agreed that continuing to provide Kluge with the accommodation that targeted and dehumanized trans students made the school vulnerable to Title IX litigation, which placed the school’s funding at risk.

Judgment was entered for the school. Appeal is expected. Follow for updates.

..........................

The district court’s ruling was a resounding victory for trans students and for schools that are actively working to foster inclusive spaces for gender-nonconforming youth. Read the court’s full decision here.