A victory in the pronoun wars

Disagreements over the use of preferred names and pronouns—often dubbed the “pronoun wars”—are now fairly common in American private and public life. But that was not the case in 2017 when Indiana teacher John Kluge first learned of a school policy requiring him to refer to students in a manner contrary to his religious beliefs. Despite the novelty of this policy and the legal consequences that followed, John took an early and courageous stand for the right to speak truthfully about the creation order reality of male and female (Genesis 1:26-27). Now, almost a decade later, his persistence has paid off and set a legal precedent that will protect teachers and other employees who share his convictions.

Kluge began teaching music theory and orchestra at Brownsburg High School in 2014, and his students and musical groups received multiple awards during his employment at the school. In 2017, the Brownsburg Community School Corporation changed its policy to require staff to refer to students using their preferred names and pronouns. John, a devout Christian, requested an accommodation and even reached an agreement with the school to refer to students using their last names—like a coach. Throughout this process, Kluge treated each student with dignity and respect as an individual made in God’s image, but he could not in good conscience affirm ideas that are unbiblical and contrary to God’s good design. Unfortunately, due to complaints from a few students and teachers, the school revoked the accommodation and forced Kluge to resign.

Initially represented by local attorneys and supported by Indiana Family Institute, Kluge filed suit against the Brownsburg Community School Corporation for failing to accommodate his religious beliefs. The federal district court ruled against him in 2021, holding that John’s use of last names frustrated the educational purpose of the school “by causing emotional harm to students and impairing BCSC’s efforts to educate them.” And the district court accepted as true the notion that non-affirmation of an individual’s transgender ideology causes psychological and emotional harm.

Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in to appeal the case to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and that Court also ruled against Kluge. Employers must afford an employee a religious accommodation unless that hardship works an “undue burden” on the employer. And the Court held that Kluge’s practice of using last names “…caused emotional harm to students and disruptions to the learning environment …” and qualified as an undue burden.

After the U.S. Supreme Court clarified and strengthened the undue burden standard in the case Groff v. Dejoy, the Seventh Circuit sent the case back to the federal district court for reconsideration. And the district court once again ruled against Kluge and held that that the last-name only accommodation led to “substantial student harm.”

Kluge appealed once more to the Seventh Circuit, and the Court finally ordered the case to proceed to trial and issued an important clarification for public school teachers in Indiana and beyond. The Court stated: “…[E]ven if the students suffered subjective emotional injury, those injuries must be objectively reasonable to rise to the level of undue hardship. Other areas of education and employment law, including in the Title VII context, routinely require some form of objective harm—not just subjective emotional distress.” The Court continued, “Given how many other Title VII claims require an objective showing, it follows that religious-accommodation cases require an employer to demonstrate an objective undue hardship on its business, not one just subjectively perceived.” Finally, in early March of this year, the Brownsburg Community School Corporation settled with Kluge for $650,000.

This case stands for a simple principle: No employee acting reasonably and in good faith should be forced to choose between their conscience and their career. And the application of the Groff case in Kluge declaws the argument that a subjectively perceived emotional harm (such as a Christian respectfully referring to an individual consistent with their sex) is sufficient to merit termination from employment.

John Kluge did not go searching for a controversy, but he stood firm on his principles when that controversy came to his classroom. And John’s courage and perseverance through almost a decade of litigation serves as an example to us all as we navigate a quickly changing culture.