
Judge backs teachers in Florida pronoun law challenge, but outcome might hinge on higher court's ruling in Georgia case
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker sided with Hillsborough County teacher Katie Wood and a Lee County teacher, identified as Jane Doe, in finding that the state law discriminates in violation of what is known as Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That section bars employment discrimination because of a person's "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
The Florida law requires teachers to use pronouns that align with their sex assigned at birth. As an example, Walker wrote, the law led Wood, a transgender woman, to erase her pronouns and title on a classroom whiteboard and begin using the title "Teacher" instead of "Ms." with her students.
Walker wrote that the state law "alters the terms and conditions of plaintiffs' employment. Compliance … means plaintiffs, transgender teachers, are forbidden from using their preferred pronouns and titles with students. Noncompliance can result in disciplinary violations, which in turn can lead to suspension or revocation of plaintiffs' teaching certifications or termination."
"Therefore, because compliance with (the law) is a condition of plaintiffs' employment, and because (the law) discriminates based on sex with respect to the terms and conditions of plaintiffs' employment, it violates Title VII," Walker wrote.
But while finding improper discrimination, Walker paused further action in the case as the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers a Georgia case, known as Lange v. Houston County.
Walker wrote that the outcome of the Georgia case, which involves an alleged Title VII violation against a transgender employee of a sheriff's office, could be "determinative" in the Florida teacher case.
"Judicial economy demands that this court (Walker) decline to issue an injunction or try the issue of damages at this juncture and stay this case pending resolution of the en banc rehearing in Lange," he wrote, using a term for a rehearing by the full appeals court.
Walker last year issued a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the pronoun law against Wood because he said it violated her First Amendment rights. But a divided panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court on July 2 overturned the injunction.
The panel's majority said Wood "cannot show, with respect to the expression at issue here, that she was speaking as a private citizen rather than a government employee" when she interacted with students in her classroom. As a result, it concluded that the state restrictions did not violate her speech rights.
The overturning of the preliminary injunction, however, did not end the lawsuit, which names as defendants the Florida Department of Education, other state education agencies and officials, the Hillsborough County School Board and the Lee County School Board.
Walker on Wednesday ruled on motions for summary judgment, which involve issues that can be resolved without going to trial. Armed with last month's appeals-court opinion, Walker rejected the plaintiffs' First Amendment arguments, while leaving unresolved issues about whether the teachers' equal-protection rights were violated.
The pronoun restrictions were part of a series of controversial measures that Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican lawmakers have approved in recent years that focus on transgender people — and have drawn legal challenges. For example, they passed a measure aimed at preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indianapolis Star
25 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Read Indiana University's letter sanctioning professor for speech it claims violates law
Indiana University has sanctioned an outspoken professor at its Bloomington campus following the review of an anonymous complaint about his classroom speech. Professor Ben Robinson is likely the first professor to be punished under Indiana's new intellectual diversity law enacted last year. In a discplinary letter, an executive dean found he conflated "personal life experiences, academic scholarship and pedagogical practice" in violation of the new law. The complaint against Robinson was filed last year and cited classroom comments he made about the university restricting free speech rights, times he's been arrested while protesting, and his views regarding the state of Israel. However, Robinson told IndyStar that irregularities with the handling of his case are concerning. He claims the university did not conduct an investigation and escalated the complaint unfairly. He also believes it's unfair that a single, anonymous complaint can result in this level of punishment. Additional sanctions could subject Robinson to probation, suspension, termination or a host of possible penalties related to promotions, tenure or salary, according to IU code. Read for yourself. Here is the disciplinary letter sent to Robinson: The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.

Washington Post
40 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Judge blocks FTC probe into liberal media watchdog
A federal judge in Washington blocked the Federal Trade Commission from carrying out investigative demands against Media Matters for America, ruling Friday that the agency was likely violating the left-leaning media watchdog group's First Amendment rights.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump threatens federal unions
Since the most recent lifting of an injunction earlier this month, the Trump administration has canceled previously signed collective bargaining agreements with at least five agencies, and more are expected. Unions acknowledge they are facing a 'setback' and must rethink aspects of their strategy for survival under Trump. Unions had argued Trump was using national security as a pretext to go after organizations that have been vocal in challenging many other administration policies. But a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a Trump administration request to lift the last of several lower court injunctions that broadly blocked implementation of the order. The panel rejected arguments that Trump's order and an accompanying fact sheet blaming 'hostile' unions for trying to 'obstruct agency management' were a sign of the true aim of the order. 'Even accepting for purposes of argument that certain statements in the Fact Sheet reflect a degree of retaliatory animus toward Plaintiffs' First Amendment activities, the Fact Sheet, taken as a whole, also demonstrates the President's focus on national security,' the court determined. In the two weeks since, the Trump administration has quietly terminated collective bargaining agreements at the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Services; the Coast Guard; Citizenship and Immigration Services; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.