Policy Requiring Teachers to Use Preferred Pronouns Upheld

Takeaway: Public employees face limitations on their First Amendment rights with respect to the performance of their duties. 

A recent ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that a teacher’s official duties can include using a student’s preferred pronouns and withholding their gender transition from parents, even if it conflicts with the teacher’s religious beliefs.

Toolkit: Navigating Religious Beliefs in the Workplace

Prior to the 2019-2020 school year, the Board of Education for Montgomery County, Md., public schools adopted guidelines that mandate that school staff members address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school. The guidelines establish students’ right to keep their gender identity private, including from the students’ parents. 

To teach in Montgomery County public schools, substitute teachers are required to complete compliance training, which includes reviewing materials that explain the guidelines. Beginning with the 2022-2023 school year, the board required all staff members, including substitute teachers, to affirm that they understood and would comply with the guidelines.

The plaintiff applied to serve as a substitute teacher for the Montgomery County public schools in early 2020, and she was interviewed in April 2021. The guidelines were then in effect. At an initial interview, the plaintiff expressed a willingness to substitute teach anywhere in the county where services were needed. After she accepted the substitute teaching position later in 2021, the plaintiff was onboarded in a manner consistent with the regulations of Montgomery County public schools, which required the plaintiff to review training materials relating to the guidelines.

During the 2021-2022 school year, the plaintiff substituted 10 times in eight separate elementary schools throughout Montgomery County, receiving uniformly positive reviews and responses concerning her teaching. Specifically, the plaintiff substituted in roles that involved preschool, special education, kindergarten, and second through fourth grade classes. Having substituted 10 times that year, the plaintiff was eligible for retention as a substitute teacher without having to reapply for the 2022-2023 school year and planned to substitute more often during the 2022-2023 school year.

As part of the retention process for the 2022-2023 school year, the plaintiff was required to review online videos concerning the board's policies and procedures. One such video concerned the guidelines. After the plaintiff watched the video, she was instructed to sign electronically — by clicking a box — an affirmation that she had watched and understood the video and that she would fully adhere to the guidelines. She declined to do so on account of her sincerely held religious beliefs, which are based on her understanding of her Christian religion.

In November 2022, the plaintiff submitted a request for a religious accommodation to the compliance coordinator for Montgomery County public schools. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the compliance coordinator discussed by telephone a possible accommodation that would be subject to further approval. During that conversation, the compliance coordinator purportedly informed the plaintiff that she would not have to use preferred pronouns, that the plaintiff would not be required to sign the affirmation, and that she would be permitted to teach in elementary schools and the preschool special education program but not in middle or high schools. 

Toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity

The coordinator also discussed with the plaintiff a possible accommodation by which the school would provide her with someone else, like a school administrator, who would be able to provide her with support and to interact instead with a student who presented gender identity issues, in light of her refusal to comply with and adhere to the guidelines. In December 2022, the compliance coordinator informed the plaintiff that the requested accommodation had been rejected. As a result, she did not substitute teach during the 2022-2023 or 2023-2024 school years.

On May 21, 2024, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Maryland federal court with three counts against the board: 1) a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the board's failure to provide her with a religious accommodation; 2) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for the board contravening her First Amendment right to free speech; and 3) a claim under Section 1983 for the board violating her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The complaint sought monetary damages from the board, along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

The board moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The district court granted dismissal of the Section 1983 claims for free speech and free exercise of religion but declined to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII failure to accommodate claim. The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was denied. She appealed the adverse rulings to the 4th Circuit.

On appeal, the 4th Circuit limited the scope of public-school teacher First Amendment rights and broadened the scope of the teacher’s official duties. It found that how a teacher addresses a student in the classroom — and whether a teacher communicates with a student’s parent — is all simply a part of the teacher's job description. Thus, the teacher has no right to express herself on the propriety of the school board’s guidelines on these topics. The 4th Circuit upheld the dismissal of the Section 1983 claims and the denial of a preliminary injunction.

A dissenting judge argued that prior First Amendment case law liberally construed employee speech over a public concern as protected if the message touched upon an issue of political, social, or other community interest. He cautioned that curbing this protection would allow public schools in other states to force teachers to promote policies adverse to transgender students.

Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 4th Cir., No. 25-1136 (Jan. 28, 2026).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.