“Physician Assistant Valerie Kloosterman filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan Health-West (UMHW) last week claiming that she was fired for her Christian beliefs, which prohibit her from using preferred pronouns and recommending “gender transitioning” procedures,” reports Campus Reform. She was fired even though she had not yet “misgendered” anyone or impacted anyone’s healthcare, and even though she could easily have been reassigned to a different task, making accommodation of her religious beliefs possible.
In 2018, Kloosterman was informed that she must complete training on how to treat LGBTQ+ patients.
The hospital required Kloosterman to complete additional training in 2021 that included “a requirement to affirm statements concerning sexual orientation and gender identity that her Christian faith prohibited her from affirming.”
There was no option to choose an alternative or “request a religious accommodation.” If the training module was left incomplete after June 30, 2021, Kloosterman was informed she would be terminated….
During a meeting on July 1, [Vice President for Diversity Rhae-Ann] Booker claimed Kloosterman was “‘uncomfortable’ seeing gay and lesbian patients” despite Kloosterman’s objections that “during her 17 years of employment” she had never had an issue with LGBTQ patients.
After the initial meeting with Booker, Kloosterman attended another meeting on July 29 with representatives from the UMHW DEI and HR departments.
One of the defendants listed in the lawsuit, DEI Program Director Thomas Pierce, attended the meeting and, “grew hostile, visibly angry with tight fists and a flushed demeanor, and attacked Ms. Kloosterman’s religious beliefs.”
Pierce told Kloosterman that she “could not take the Bible or her religious beliefs to work.” Pierce also called Kloosterman “evil” and a “liar” for adhering to her religious beliefs. After these statements, Pierce also accused Kloosterman of causing patients to commit suicide.
“Defendant Pierce also asked Ms. Kloosterman whether she knew that by using a patient’s name instead of his or her preferred pronouns, she would cause him or her to commit suicide,” the lawsuit read. “When he said that this assertion was well-documented, Ms. Kloosterman cited some scientific studies that showed otherwise.”…
Nearly a month [later Kloosterman was] informed that despite having “never used pronouns that went against a patient’s wishes” or been asked to refer a provider for “‘gender reassignment’ drugs or procedures” she would be fired on Aug. 24….“[S]he raised her religious concerns with them, and that’s when they fired her.”
The lawsuit [alleges] that UMHW unlawfully and unconstitutionally “demand[ed] that Ms. Kloosterman abandon her religious beliefs and her medical ethics to remain employed.”…Kloosterman is seeking “reinstatement; payment of her lost wages and benefits; declaratory and injunctive relief; actual, punitive, and nominal damages; and all other applicable remedies.”
Universities often seem to think that transgender “rights” override First Amendment rights or religious freedom. Earlier, a Utah professor was punished for not using a transgender student’s preferred “they/them” pronouns. Theater Professor Richard Bugg filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Southern Utah University took action against him for refusing to use the “they/them” pronouns demanded by a “non-binary” student.
Bugg’s federal lawsuit asks a judge to issue an injunction against the university to stop it from requiring him to use the student’s preferred pronouns, which ungrammatically include plural pronouns. In an effort to compromise, he had offered to use any name for the student or singular pronouns, but the university, located in Cedar City, Utah, said that was not enough.
In 2021, a federal appeals court in Ohio ruled that a professor at a different university likely had a First Amendment right not to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns, in Meriwether v. Hartop (2021).
Yet Southern Utah University officials required Bugg, following an investigation, to submit to training about personal pronouns.
“Professor Richard Bugg [must] submit to education about current views and opinions of English language and grammar experts and resources that using Gender-Neutral pronouns when referring to an individual is now considered grammatically correct,” one sanction stated.
The university warned Bugg, a tenured instructor, that refusing to use someone’s preferred pronouns would be considered a violation of university policy and could lead to his being fired. His decision would be considered a violation of the university’s rules against non-discrimination, harassment and sexual misconduct.
“I …am opposed to the coercion of speech that is taking place on our campus and on most campuses,” Bugg says. “Asking people to use plural pronouns to refer to individuals is one thing. Forcing them to do it is another and contrary to our rights of free speech.”
His attorneys observe that “non-binary” individuals can have ever changing pronouns, and argue that a professor cannot be expected to keep track of every student’s pronouns.
“There are at least several dozen recently-coined specific gender pronouns by which non-binary students may potentially choose to have themselves addressed,” Bugg’s court complaint stated. “As but a small example, these pronouns include not only ‘They’ and ‘Them’, but also, e.g., Zie, Ze, Sie, Ey, Ve, Tey, E, Zieself, Hirself, Eirself, Verself, Terself, Emself, Hir, Xe, Xem, Hy, Hym, Co and Coz.”
The student who complained “expressed to classmates that [the student’s] goal was to get the Professor fired because he would not agree to [the student’s] demands,” according to the plaintiff’s complaint.
“To further that goal, the record reflects that Complainant exerted strong pressure on Complainant’s classmates to boycott the Professor’s class,” the lawsuit alleged. The complaining student also “demanded that the University establish an alternate so-called ‘shadow class’ for those who would go along with Complainant’s plan for a boycott of the Professor’s class.”
One federal appeals court ruled in the past that setting up such shadow classes violates the First Amendment rights of the professor they are aimed at. See Levin v. Harleston, 966 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1992).
The university’s response to the lawsuit claims there is not a specific policy covering the use of someone’s pronouns, but that recent guidance issued by the Biden administration requires such use:
“While there is no SUU policy that specifically requires the use of gender pronouns, the University must strictly adhere to federal regulations regarding anti-discrimination (Policy 5.27) and sexual misconduct (Policy 5.60) under Title VII and Title IX respectively,” the university stated. “Those regulations were updated in January 2021 with the Biden Administration expanding the definition of sex to include gender identity. SUU employees are required to follow these federal guidelines, just as are all people who are employed in either the private or public sectors.”
SUU’s demand should be rejected as having no basis in the civil-rights laws, even assuming they cover discrimination based on transgender status. What the transgender student was seeking was not equal treatment of the transgendered, but a preference in their favor. Non-trangender people have no right to force co-workers to use plural words to refer to them, or to violate basic grammatical rules, so trangender people should not, either. Courts have ruled that federal civil rights laws do not create a right to affirmative action or special treatment, in cases such as Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1997).
