992 F.3d 492
6th Cir.2021Background
- Nicholas Meriwether, a longtime philosophy professor at Shawnee State University, declined to address a student (Doe) by female pronouns based on his sincerely held religious belief that sex is fixed at conception.
- Shawnee State had a nondiscrimination policy covering "gender identity" and informed faculty they must use students’ preferred pronouns; administrators told Meriwether he would face discipline if he refused.
- Meriwether proposed accommodations (initially using only the student’s last name and later a syllabus disclaimer); dean at first accepted the last-name approach but later demanded use of female pronouns and rejected the syllabus disclaimer.
- A cursory Title IX investigation concluded Meriwether created a hostile environment; Shawnee State issued a written warning and threatened further discipline; the faculty union grievance was denied after process officials allegedly expressed hostility toward Meriwether’s religious views.
- Meriwether sued for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Ohio law, and contract; the district court dismissed his federal free-speech and free-exercise claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal as to free-speech and free-exercise claims, affirmed the due-process/vagueness ruling, vacated other free-speech holdings, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether professor’s in-class speech is protected by the First Amendment | Meriwether: professor speech in classroom is academic speech entitled to protection; Garcetti exception does not apply | Shawnee State: Garcetti bars claims for statements made pursuant to official duties; pronoun use is ministerial | Court: Garcetti does not control teaching/scholarship; academic-freedom precedent protects Meriwether’s classroom speech; claim may proceed |
| Whether university lawfully compelled speech/use of pronouns (Pickering balance) | Meriwether: refusal to use pronouns addresses a matter of public concern; Pickering balancing favors his interests in academic freedom and religious conscience | Shawnee State: interest in preventing discrimination and complying with Title IX outweighs professor’s interest | Court: speech concerned public issue; university’s interests were comparatively weak given accommodation efforts and lack of demonstrated harm; Pickering favors Meriwether |
| Whether application of the pronoun policy violated Free Exercise Clause | Meriwether: university officials showed religious hostility and applied rules inconsistently; denial of accommodations targeted his beliefs | Shawnee State: policy is neutral and aimed at nondiscrimination; Title IX/anti-discrimination obligations justify enforcement | Court: allegations plausibly show nonneutrality and hostility (and procedural irregularities); Free Exercise claim survives and triggers strict scrutiny |
| Whether policy is impermissibly vague as applied (Due Process) | Meriwether: policy gives unbridled discretion and fails to give notice what conduct is prohibited | Shawnee State: policy defines gender identity and Meriwether was told his conduct violated it | Court: on the facts alleged, Meriwether had notice the policy applied; vagueness challenge fails as-applied; due-process holding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (First Amendment protects right to refrain from speaking)
- Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557 (government may not compel affirmation of beliefs)
- Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (compelled speech doctrine and harms of compelled affirmation)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (employee-speech rule; Court left open application to academic speech)
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (plurality) (academic freedom protects classroom lectures)
- Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (academic freedom is a special First Amendment concern; no pall of orthodoxy)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (balancing public-employee speech against government interest)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public concern inquiry for employee speech)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civ. Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (religious-hostility doctrine in adjudication)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (facial neutrality insufficient; scrutinize application and exemptions)
- EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (Title VII panel decision on transgender status in employment context)
- Hardy v. Jefferson Cmty. Coll., 260 F.3d 671 (6th Cir.) (recognizing First Amendment protection for in-class professor speech)
- Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402 (9th Cir.) (Garcetti inapplicable to academic teaching/writing)