School's Transgender Policy Does Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (D MD, Jan. 17, 2025), a public-school substitute teacher alleged that a Maryland school system violated her free exercise and free speech rights when it insisted that she affirm Guidelines on dealing with transgender students. The Guidelines required her to refer to students by their preferred pronouns and barred them from discussing a student's gender identity with the student's parents without the student's consent. Plaintiff insisted that the Guidelines conflict with her religious beliefs. She also contended that under Title VII she is entitled to a reasonable accommodation of her beliefs. The court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim, finding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable. It dismissed her free speech claim because the speech required by the Guidelines are part of plaintiff's official duties as a teacher. The court however, while refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, permitted plaintiff to move ahead on her Title VII failure to accommodate claim against the school board saying that the Board's undue hardship defense should be raised at the summary judgement stage of the proceedings rather than on a motion to dismiss.

National Guard Officer Sues After Dismissal for His Religion-Based Anti-LGBTQ Views

Suit was filed last week in an Idaho federal district court by an Idaho National Guard officer who was removed from a command position that he had just assumed because of his Christian religious views on sexuality that he had expressed during his previous campaigns for mayor and state senator. The complaint (full text) in Worley v. Little, (D ID, filed 1/17/2025), reads in part:

74. The Investigating Officer stated, in his findings, that Major Worley had “well documented discriminatory views against the LGBTQ community” that “suggest an inability to uphold the values of equality, respect, and impartiality expected of a company commander.”...

75.... In addition to his unconstitutional and unconscionable findings as it relates to Major Worley’s religious beliefs, views, expression, and exercise, the Investigating Officer also recommended to Defendants that they institute a “No Christians in Command” Policy. ...

The complaint alleges that this violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Cert. Granted on Whether Opt-Out is Required When Parent Objects on Religious Grounds to Public School Curricular Material

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Mahmoud v. Taylor, (Docket No. 24-297, certiorari granted 1/17/2025). (Order List.) The question presented to the Court in the Petition for Certiorari is:

Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?

In the case, the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education adopted certain LGBTQ-Inclusive Books as part of a larger array of books for use by English Language Arts teachers. An initial arrangement allowing parents to opt their children out of exposure to these books was ended by the Board.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a free exercise violation occurs only when there is some sort of direct or indirect pressure to change religious beliefs or conduct, and that mere presence in the classroom when these materials may be read does not create that kind of coercion. (See prior posting.) 

CBS News reports on the Court's action.

9th Circuit: Police Department's LGBTQ Outreach Was Government Speech That Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a police officer who objected to the police department's authorizing officers to wear an LGBTQ Pride uniform patch and to the raising of a Pride flag at police headquarters.  Plaintiff wanted to create other uniform patches and flag designs featuring Christian or anti-LGBTQ themes. His proposal was denied and he was placed on indefinite administrative leave. He sued, claiming violation of his equal protection, free speech and free exercise rights. The court said in part:

The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s free speech and free exercise claims because Defendants were engaging in government speech and Sangervasi was speaking as a government employee....  The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s equal protection claims because he failed to allege facts demonstrating a discriminatory intent.

Catholic Doctors Sue HHS Over Interpretation of EMTALA's Impact on State Abortion Bans

Suit was filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court by an organization of Catholic physicians challenging a July 2022 Memorandum and accompanying Letter from the Department of Health and Human Services that stated that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act pre-empts state abortion bans when an abortion is needed for emergency care. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (MD TN, filed 1/10/2025) alleges in part:

2. The Memorandum and Letter ... exceed Defendants’ statutory authority, were promulgated without procedure required by law, and are arbitrary and capricious, all in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Mandate also violates the rights of doctors under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment....

169. CMA’s members exercise their religious beliefs in practicing medicine by caring for patients generally, and in caring for patients in situations subject to EMTALA. CMA’s members exercise their religious beliefs in treating pregnant women and their unborn children with respect and dignity, and in opposing involvement in the direct and intentional killing of unborn children in abortion. 

170. The Mandate substantially burdens the exercise of CMA’s members’ sincerely held religious beliefs. 

171. The Mandate imposes significant pressure on CMA’s members to practice medicine in way that would violate their beliefs because of the threat of investigations, fines, and other punishments and impairments.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

6th Circuit: Free Exercise Challenge to Child Custody Ruling Must Be Dismissed

In Edelstein v. Flottman, (6th Cir., Jan. 10, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with an Ohio federal district court that the domestic relations abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit against the state judges and social worker involved in the child custody rulings in plaintiff's divorce case. Plaintiffs, a mother and her minor son, contended that the mother's parental rights and the son's free exercise rights were violated by the custody order which forced the son to spend the Sabbath with his non-observant father. The court said in part:

"a fair reading of [Plaintiffs'] complaint and [their] brief on appeal reveals that the instant case essentially is a pretense to obtain federal review of domestic relations matters," which we cannot do.

University' Rescission of Agreement with Church Did Not Violate Equal Protection or Free Exercise Clauses

In Calvary Chapel Belfast v. University of Maine System, (D ME, Jan. 10, 2025), a Maine federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order requiring the University of Maine to move ahead with negotiations with Calvary Chapel for the sale to the Church of the University's satellite campus in Belfast, Maine, known as the Hutchinson Center. Originally the University awarded the Church the right to negotiate terms and conditions for the purchase. Competing bidders, as well as some in the community, objected to the award. The University rescinded the award and ultimately awarded the right to purchase to another bidder. The Church filed suit alleging Equal Protection and Free Exercise violations. Rejecting those claims, the court said in part:

The Church argues the comments of the public and the other bidders, combined with what the Church alleges were procedural anomalies in the System’s process, demonstrate the System made its decision to rescind its initial award to the Church because of the Church’s religious status and views, and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause....

[T]he only evidence the Church produces that demonstrates religious bias comes wholly from parties outside the University of Maine System. However, ... rather than adopting the community’s animosity toward the Church, the System here specifically rejected such bias. The System, in its August 22, 2024 press release, responded to the comments expressing religious animosity as follows: “[t]he university cannot discriminate, including on the basis of religion. Doing so would be against the law and inconsistent with the university’s commitment to inclusion.”...

None of the Church’s cited authorities stand for the proposition that the Court can conclude solely from public opposition that the System violated the Equal Protection Clause for following its own stated procedures to rescind the award to the Church. The fact that there was religious animosity present in the community and even argued to the System as a basis for appeal cannot mean the System is locked into a decision that it determined would result in a substantial net financial loss....

The Church’s arguments that it will likely succeed on its Free Exercise Clause claim rely on the same arguments it makes in support of its Equal Protection Clause claim....

South Carolina Doctors Challenge Abortion Ban on Free Exercise Grounds

Suit was filed last week in a South Carolina federal district court by five physicians who contend that South Carolina's abortion ban violates their religious and conscientious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause. The complaint (full text) in Bingham v. Wilson, (D SC, filed 1/8/2025), alleges in part:

137. Plaintiffs hold sincere religious and conscientious beliefs that they have unwavering duties to respect the dignity of every person, help people in critical need, and place others before themselves. For Plaintiffs, that includes using their medical training to honor a patient’s request to end a pregnancy that threatens to deeply harm her.

The complaint focuses on the narrow exceptions from the abortion ban in South Carolina law for health of the mother, rape or incest, and fatal fetal anomaly and contends:

168. It is neither religiously neutral nor generally applicable for South Carolina to allow abortion under the Abortion Ban’s secular Exceptions while criminalizing abortion when Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs compel it in substantially similar circumstances. 

169. In sum, South Carolina has criminalized religious conduct while allowing secular conduct that undermines its purported state interest in similar ways. In doing so, the State has made a value judgment that secular motivations for abortion care are important enough to overcome this interest, but that religious motivations are not. South Carolina has thus singled out religious conduct for unfavorable treatment.

Plaintiffs also allege that the health and fetal anomaly exceptions in the law are unconstitutionally vague.

Washington Examiner reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Cert. Granted in Appointments Clause Case; Underlying Issue Is Religious Objection to Insurance Coverage Mandate

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Becerra v. Braidwood Management, Inc., (Docket No. 24-316, certiorari granted 1/10/2025).  (Order List). The issue before the Supreme Court set out in the petition for certiorari is whether the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Health insurance plans are required to cover without cost sharing various preventive services recommended by the Task Force and by two other advisory bodies. As explained in the 5th Circuit opinion being reviewed, plaintiffs object on religious grounds to providing the Task Force's mandated insurance coverage for pre-exposure drugs that prevent the transmission of HIV. Plaintiffs contend that this coverage makes them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use and sexual activity outside of marriage. UPI reports on the Court's action.

UPDATE: on January 13, the Court denied certiorari sought by a conditional cross-petition in the case. Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra, (Docket No. 24-475, certiorari denied 1/13/2025). (Order List.)

Challenges to School Policy on Disclosure of Gender Identity Change May Move Ahead

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Jan. 7, 2025), a California federal district court denied motions to dismiss a suit brought by teachers and parents challenging a policy of the state board of education that schools are not to disclose a student's announced change of gender identity to the student's parents without the student's consent. The policy is intended to protect student privacy.  Among other challenges, plaintiffs claimed that the policy violates their 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The court said in part:

According to the Complaint, the policies force parents to accede to a school’s plan to neither acknowledge nor disclose information about their child’s gender dysphoria.  By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant, because they are kept uninformed of the need for their child’s religious guidance.  “....

... Teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.  To the extent that teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD has hired their speech to speak falsely or deceptively to parents of students, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Likewise, to the extent teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD’s curriculum includes what the teachers sincerely believe to be lies and deceptions for communications with school parents and that such prevarications are religiously or morally offensive, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  EUSD contends that it is not a lie to not answer a question.  That the teachers sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary cannot be simply dismissed....

There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.  This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.  Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.

Suit Challenges Museum's Diversity Policy as Violative of Employee's Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an employee of the Genesee Country Museum who was fired from her managerial position because her religious beliefs were inconsistent with the Museum's Diversity, Equity, Acceptance and Inclusion Policy. The complaint (full text) in Berkemeir v. Genesee County Museum, (WD NY, filed 1/2/2025), alleges that plaintiff's dismissal violates her free exercise and free speech rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as other statutes. The complaint specifically focuses on requirements to address individuals by their preferred pronouns, but also sets out broader objections, stating in part:

80. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that she is to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness,” but to “expose them.”... 

81. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that silence in the face of evil is evil itself....

84. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief that for her to fail to speak out against things she knows are wrong results in the eternal condemnation of her soul....

228. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs that compelled her to view all people as created by God in His image and equally deserving of respect did not comport with Defendants’ newly minted program of requiring all employees to view white people as “born oppressors” and somehow undeserving of identical respect and treatment. 

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church of Satanology's Suit to Display Banner in Schools Moves Ahead

In Stevens v. School Board of Broward County, Florida, (SD FL, Jan. 2, 2025), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause claims brought by a minister of The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soiree whose request to display a religious banner at a high school and a middle school were denied. Schools had permitted other churches to display banners, but refused plaintiff's request to display a banner reading "Satan Loves the First Amendment". The court said in part:

... Reverend Stevens has adequately alleged that he “has engaged in the exercise of religion.”... The school board’s arguments as to the lack of evidence regarding the Church’s tenets are better addressed on a motion for summary judgment or at trial, not on a motion to dismiss. And by preventing Reverend Stevens from displaying these banners, the school board has allegedly “substantially burdened this religious exercise.”...

The Court concludes that Reverend Stevens has stated a claim for viewpoint discrimination.  

The school board has arguably created a limited public forum at its schools by allowing some advertisements to be displayed on school grounds. ...

To the extent that Reverend Stevens’s First Amendment claim is brought as an Establishment Clause claim, rather than a Free Exercise Clause claim, the school board has not established that it should be dismissed....

4th Circuit: Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply in Challenge to No Religious Exemption in Vaccination Law

In West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom v. Christiansen, (4th Cir., Dec. 31, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a West Virginia federal district court erred in applying the Pullman abstention doctrine in a suit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia's vaccine mandate for school children. Plaintiffs contended that the absence of a religious exemption in the mandate violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The majority said in part:

Pullman abstention is typically reserved for a situation where the state law being presented is unclear and could be interpreted in a way that avoids the federal constitutional issue....  And Pullman abstention is not applicable if the state law is not subject to an interpretation that would render unnecessary the adjudication of a federal constitutional question....

 ... [T]he only state law presented for decision here is the Vaccination Mandate.  On the other hand, the only state law identified as being unclear is the recently adopted [Equal Protection for Religion Act].  And the Plaintiffs are not challenging the Vaccination Mandate under EPRA.  Rather, the Plaintiffs pursue their Free Exercise claim solely under the Free Exercise Clause.... 

... “[A]bstention cannot be ordered simply to give state courts the first opportunity to vindicate the federal claim.”

Judge Berner filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In several cases ..., this court and the Supreme Court have found abstention proper because the challenged law’s relationship with a different state law or constitutional provision was unsettled....

Because the relationship between the Vaccination Mandate and the EPRA is unsettled, this case satisfies the first Pullman requirement. 

This case also meets the second Pullman precondition.... There is no requirement that the resolution of the state law issue necessarily moot the federal constitutional issue. Instead, it is enough that questions of state law “may dispose of the case and avoid the need for deciding the constitutional question.”

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Moratorium Delaying Building of Mosque

In Zikar Holdings, LLC v. Ruhland, (D MN, Dec. 26, 2024), a Minnesota federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the city of Lino Lakes from enforcing a one-year moratorium on development of an area of the city where plaintiffs had proposed to build a housing development that included a mosque. Plaintiffs contended that the moratorium was motivated by discriminatory intent in violation of the free exercise clause, RLUIPA and the Fair Housing Act. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs are likely to show that the Moratorium might have delayed Plaintiffs’ ability to build a place of worship and potential future residences near it in the northwest corner of Lino Lakes.  The language of the Moratorium, however, places no permanent restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to build anything and, perhaps more importantly, it places no restriction on Plaintiff’s ability to seek development of a mosque elsewhere in the City or to worship elsewhere in the City.  Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that they are likely to prove the Moratorium was a “substantial burden” on their ability to practice Islam....

On this evidence, the Court believes a reasonable juror could infer that the Moratorium was pretextual.  However, the evidence presented at this stage, prior to discovery, is not so strong that it satisfies the heightened Rounds standard.  The motives and beliefs of the council members, as well as the basis for the timing of the Moratorium decision remain unknown at this stage, and absent additional circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that supporting the Moratorium reflected the importance of complying with the 2040 Plan and prudent infrastructure and resource planning.  Thus, the Court concludes that this factor is neutral, weighing neither in favor of nor against granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.....

Hospital Employee's Vaccine Objections Were Religious

In Lavelle-Hayden v. Employment Dept., (OR App., Dec. 18, 2024), an Oregon state appellate court held that a hospital respiratory therapist who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine requirement should receive unemployment benefits. It held that the state Employment Appeals Board's (EAB) conclusion that the employee's objection to the Covid vaccine was secular or personal in nature, rather than religious, was not supported by substantial evidence. The court said in part:

First, the EAB appears to have overlooked the Supreme Court’s injunction that tribunals ordinarily must refrain from assessing the plausibility of a claim of religious belief, and to have read the record with unreasonable parsimony in view of that standard....

Second, the EAB drew unreasonable inferences from the fact that claimant’s church declined to provide her a letter in support of her exemption request. The EAB inferred that “the fact that claimant’s own religious leader refused to provide a letter weighs to some extent against finding that claimant’s opposition to taking the vaccine was rooted in religion.” The EAB also inferred that the fact “that the leader told claimant it might be ‘too political to get involved’ supports an inference that when claimant asked for the letter, the religious leader regarded claimant’s objection to receiving a vaccine to be based on her political beliefs, not religion.”... But that reasoning ... presupposes that one’s religious beliefs and political beliefs are necessarily mutually exclusive....

... [T]here is no basis on which to sustain the denial of benefits that is consistent with the evidence and Free Exercise Clause.

SNAP Work Requirement Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights of Plaintiff's Adult Children

In Light v. Missouri Department of Social Services, (WD MO, Dec. 12, 2024), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the removal of plaintiff's four adult children from the SNAP (food stamp) program because they failed to comply the requirement to register for work and accept suitable employment offers.  According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that participation of her four adult children in the SNAP work program is against their sincerely held beliefs under the Holy Bible New Testament KJV. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the work registration and training requirements would cause her children to give up their time to an employer placing them under ownership, and be placed in a position of a servant....

Plaintiff does not cite, and the Court has not found, any indication where the SNAP work and training requirements are not generally applicable. 

If a law is neutral and generally applicable courts will apply a rational basis review.... Courts uphold a valid and neutral law of general applicability if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose even if there is an incidental effect on religious belief.... SNAP was established to raise levels of nutrition among low-income households. To be eligible for the program both households and individuals had to adhere to certain eligibility requirements. This is a rationally related law to a legitimate government purpose of raising levels of nutrition among low-income households....

Supreme Court Grants Review of Wisconsin's Denial of Unemployment Comp Exemption for Catholic Charities

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Commission, (Docket No. 24-154, certiorari granted 12/13/2024). (Order List). In the case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court by a vote of 4-3 held that Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities are not entitled to an exemption from the state's unemployment compensation law. (See prior posting.) Catholic Charities' petition for certiorari asks the Supreme Court to decide if Wisconsin violated the 1st Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities activities are primarily charitable and secular so that the statutory religious organization exemption is not available to it. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the pleadings and briefs filed in the case.

Christian Haven for Sex Trafficking Victims Sues to Receive Federal Funding

Gracehaven, a Christian organization that cares for young survivors of sex trafficking, filed suit this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging the county's refusal to contract with it to receive federal Title IV-E funding for foster care services.  The complaint (full text) in Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, filed 12/9/2024), says in part:

12.  Because Gracehaven is a Christian ministry that requires all employees to share and live out its religious beliefs, it told Montgomery County that it was not waiving or surrendering its right to employ only those who share its faith by signing the contract, and that it would sign the contract “as is.”  

13. The County responded that it would no longer “move forward with the renewal” of the contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry’s religiously based employment practices.  ...

15. But Defendants’ position conflicts with federal law, which expressly allows religious organizations to prefer members of their own faith as employees. 

18. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established—indeed, has held three times in the past seven years—that the government “violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The complaint also alleges that the county's action violates its freedom of expressive association and its religious freedom rights under the Ohio Constitution. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Good News Clubs Sue California School District for Access

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that a California school district has prevented Good News Clubs from meeting in district elementary schools. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship NORCAL, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, filed 12/11/2024), alleges in part:

1. For over two years, Defendant OUSD and its officials have unconstitutionally and impermissibly prohibited CEF from hosting its Good News Clubs in public elementary school facilities owned by OUSD. The Good News Club provides free moral and character training to students from a Christian viewpoint and strategically meets at public schools after school hours for the convenience of parents. CEF’s Good News Club has enriched the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of students across OUSD for over a decade. 

2. ... CEF was forced to temporarily end its Good News Club meetings in 2020 due to COVID-19 but sought to resume its meetings starting in January 2023. Despite having a long and storied history of providing after-school enrichment programs to students in OUSD, numerous schools within OUSD inexplicably denied the Good News Club access to use OUSD facilities while allowing numerous secular organizations and activities to resume meeting after school hours.  

3. CEF seeks a judgment declaring Defendants’ discriminatory use policies unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied, under the Free Speech, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CEF also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ... together with damages....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Teacher Sues After Being Suspended for Having Books With LGBTQ+ Characters in Her Classroom

 A third-grade teacher in the southern Ohio village of New Richmond filed suit last week in an Ohio federal district court seeking damages for the 3-day suspension imposed on her for having four books in her classroom's book collection that have LGBTQ+ characters in them.  The school claimed that the books violated the District's Policy 2240 on Controversial Issues in the Classroom. The complaint (full text) in Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District Board of Education, (SD OH, filed 12/2/2024), alleges in part:

12. Plaintiff Karen Cahall maintained these books in her classroom amongst over one hundred other books spanning a wide variety of subject matters in furtherance of her sincerely held moral and religious beliefs that that all children, including children who are LGBTQ+ or the children of parents who are LGBTQ+, deserve to be respected, accepted, and loved for who they are....

50. During the course of her employment with defendant New Richmond, other teachers, staff and administrators have publicly displayed insignias and symbols of their religious beliefs in the presence of students, including but not limited to Christian crosses worn as jewelry, that are more visible to students than the books identified herein, without any consequence....

70. New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 is unconstitutionally vague ... because it fails to provide fair notice to plaintiff Karen Cahall and other teachers ... of what they can and cannot maintain in their classrooms....

81. By using New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 to suspend plaintiff Karen Cahall ... based upon a perceived community objection to plaintiff Karen Cahall’s sincerely held moral and religious beliefs, defendant Tracey Miller unlawfully and with discriminatory intent determined that plaintiff Karen Cahall’s religious viewpoints and beliefs were unacceptable, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.....

87. By using New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 to suspend plaintiff Karen Cahall ..., defendant Tracey Miller unlawfully and with discriminatory intent determined that plaintiff Karen Cahall’s moral and religious viewpoints and beliefs were unacceptable in comparison to the moral and religious viewpoints of others. in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Cincinatti Enquirer reported on the lawsuit.