In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, (SD IN, April 30, 2024), an Indiana federal district court in a 46-page opinion that sets out extensive factual background information, dismissed an orchestra teacher's Title VII claim that the school had failed to reasonably accommodate his religious objections to referring to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. The school had initially permitted the teacher to refer to students by their last names only, but later withdrew that accommodation and forced the teacher's resignation. A primary issue in the case was whether continuing to allow a last-names-only accommodation would create an "undue hardship" for the school under the Supreme Court's definition of that term in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Finding that it would, the court said in part:
BCSC's business is "educating all students," which it achieves by "fostering a learning environment of respect and affirmation."... Part of that is BCSC's mission to "afford[] dignity and empathy toward transgender students."... Parents, medical professionals, administrators, and many students all agree that pursuing that mission would require transgender students to be addressed by their preferred names and pronouns....
Lest there be any doubt about disruption, Mr. Kluge himself believed that the Last Names Only Accommodation would result in disruption and indeed was encouraged by it. He explained to Dr. Daghe that far from resigning, he was "encouraged all the more to stay." ... After all, he believed, his "persecution" was "a sign that [his] faith as witnessed by using last-names-only . . . was being effective."... Faced with Mr. Kluge's own statements—"pleading" with the school to avoid going down the "transgender path," seeking to discuss with students their "eternal destination," and hoping to stay because his "persecution" surrounding the Last Names Only Accommodation was being "effective"—complaints from others were hardly necessary. While the Last Names Only Accommodation might have been intended as neutral, it ultimately was perceived as intentional....
As the Supreme Court held in Groff, undue hardship is to be viewed within the context of a particular business, not a particular employee. The Court compares the cost to BCSC's mission, not Mr. Kluge's. BCSC could either support its transgender students in pursuit of its mission and comply with the law, or accede to Mr. Kluge's accommodation and risk harm to students and the learning environment and/or substantial and disruptive litigation.... The law of Title VII does not require BCSC to continue an accommodation that actually resulted in substantial student harm, and an unreasonable risk of liability, each sharply contradicting the school's legally entitled mission to foster a supportive environment for all. The Last Names Only Accommodation was an undue burden to BCSC as a matter of law.....
