In his decision, he refuted several arguments presented by the state, including the claim that Ms. Wood using “Ms.” could “impede her job duties.” He found this assertion to be unfounded, noting instead that as a teacher, Ms. Wood’s students achieved test scores higher than the district average.
This is a problem. It should not matter if Ms. Wood’s students perform above or below average. The first amendment does not have qualifiers related to job performance. Even if she was a terrible teacher, that does not constitute a compelling interest in misgendering someone at work. The argument that it might affect her abilities to teach are wholly without merit, not because she is a good teacher, but because her gender is unrelated to her teaching.
It might be splitting hairs here, but the judge isn’t using that as a qualifier for his ruling, he’s using it to refute FL’s assertion. You’re right that FL should lose automatically based on First Amendment reasons, but one of the criteria for filing an appeal is the probability of success on the merits. Demonstrating that FL’s arguments are provably wrong helps to make the ruling more resistant to an appeal, should FL decide to appeal it.
But see that’s where I think the judge erred. By refuting the assertion with evidence of good teaching, the judge creates a test for future rulings. Proving the argument wrong in this case means that the argument would be valid in other cases. So transgender teachers who’s students are below average don’t have the same rights?
The district has to prove a compelling interest to infringe on the rights of an employee. The burden of proof is on the district, not the teacher, and it should not have been entertained at all.
Agreed. It detracts from the point that misgendering others is a form of hate speech when done intentionally and/or maliciously.
This is reflected within other minority communities as well, who often have to prove that they are demonstrably “better” at whatever field of expertise or topic they wish to engage in to be considered “worthy” of engaging with those who have historically wielded power and authority over said minorities.
That said, the US justice system is in a tumultuous turbulent state right now, and I’m happy to take whatever wins we can for my Trans comrades, no matter how small they may be.
This is a good win, but this:
This is a problem. It should not matter if Ms. Wood’s students perform above or below average. The first amendment does not have qualifiers related to job performance. Even if she was a terrible teacher, that does not constitute a compelling interest in misgendering someone at work. The argument that it might affect her abilities to teach are wholly without merit, not because she is a good teacher, but because her gender is unrelated to her teaching.
It might be splitting hairs here, but the judge isn’t using that as a qualifier for his ruling, he’s using it to refute FL’s assertion. You’re right that FL should lose automatically based on First Amendment reasons, but one of the criteria for filing an appeal is the probability of success on the merits. Demonstrating that FL’s arguments are provably wrong helps to make the ruling more resistant to an appeal, should FL decide to appeal it.
But see that’s where I think the judge erred. By refuting the assertion with evidence of good teaching, the judge creates a test for future rulings. Proving the argument wrong in this case means that the argument would be valid in other cases. So transgender teachers who’s students are below average don’t have the same rights?
The district has to prove a compelling interest to infringe on the rights of an employee. The burden of proof is on the district, not the teacher, and it should not have been entertained at all.
Denying an appeal does not set precedent
The reasoning for the denial is caselaw.
Caselaw which does not effect stare decisis…
Agreed. It detracts from the point that misgendering others is a form of hate speech when done intentionally and/or maliciously.
This is reflected within other minority communities as well, who often have to prove that they are demonstrably “better” at whatever field of expertise or topic they wish to engage in to be considered “worthy” of engaging with those who have historically wielded power and authority over said minorities.
That said, the US justice system is in a tumultuous turbulent state right now, and I’m happy to take whatever wins we can for my Trans comrades, no matter how small they may be.