Ramirez v. Oakland Unified School District
3:24-cv-09223
| N.D. Cal. | May 27, 2025Background
- Mirella Ramirez, a Catholic kindergarten teacher, was terminated from Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) after refusing to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns due to her religious beliefs.
- Following complaints, the student was reassigned, and Ramirez was formally reprimanded for non-compliance with district and state anti-discrimination policies.
- Ramirez was offered accommodations (like using last names or teaching a different class), which she rejected as inadequate; she was ultimately suspended and then fired under California anti-discrimination law and school board policies.
- Ramirez sued OUSD and school officials in their individual capacities, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise, plus freedom from unconstitutional conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity (for the district), qualified immunity (for individuals), and failure to state a claim.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss, with prejudice as to OUSD and without prejudice as to individual defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is OUSD immune as an arm of the state? | OUSD is a local entity, not covered by sovereign immunity. | OUSD is an arm of the state under Kohn factors (state entity). | OUSD has sovereign immunity and is dismissed. |
| Are individual officials entitled to qualified immunity? | Law was clearly established on compelled speech/free exercise. | No clear precedent shows individual conduct was unconstitutional. | Qualified immunity applies; individuals are dismissed. |
| Does refusal to use pronouns constitute protected speech? | Speech was as a citizen on a public concern; involved compelled speech. | Speech was pursuant to official duties, not protected by the First Amendment. | No protected speech; claim dismissed. |
| Was there religious hostility violating Free Exercise? | Enforcement and questioning evinced religious hostility. | Actions were neutral enforcement of district policy. | No plausible allegation of hostility; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employee speech pursuant to official duties is not protected by First Amendment)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colo. Civ. Rights Comm'n, 584 U.S. 617 (2018) (impermissible state hostility to religion required for free exercise violation)
- Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., and Mun. Emp., 585 U.S. 878 (2018) (government can compel lawful messages in some public employment contexts)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits against states without consent)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (qualified immunity is broad and protects unless clearly established violation exists)