by Jennifer Novotny | Jun 6, 2024
An Important Update! Implementation of the proposed 2024 Title IX regulations is on hold for Ohio as a result of the injunction upheld last week by a panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. This means the Title IX regulations and processes we will be starting the year with are the 2020 regulations. To reduce confusion, we are making a change to the Title IX training scheduled for July 24.
The trainings will now be available on-demand starting in early August. There will not be a live training on July 24.
Our updated on demand trainings will focus on the 2020 Title IX regulations while also considering the potential 2024 regulation changes. We understand the importance of having trained individuals to handle instances of sex discrimination or harassment and providing training on these regulations demonstrates your good faith efforts to comply with the current procedures.
Contact EB to develop a customized training program for your district’s specific needs.
We have designed our curriculum in modules with different focus areas for different roles.
Module 1 is designed as a professional development opportunity for all staff. It will help your employees understand what the new Title IX regulations require and their role in compliance. The cost of the module is $205 per district.
Other modules are specifically designed as advanced-level trainings for Title IX Coordinators, Decision Makers, Investigators, Appeal Officers, and Confidential Employees (such as guidance counselors). The cost of these modules is $400 per module, per district.
Districts are encouraged to develop an attendance list for those who view the on-demand version of the module(s) for future reference.
As part of our comprehensive training program, Ennis Britton is pleased to offer a Title IX Resource Kit. This Kit includes essential template documents tailored for your district’s use and reference. The cost of the kit is $500.
**If you have already registered for the July 24 training and wish to receive the on-demand links, no further action is needed. If you prefer to cancel and not receive the links, please contact Jennifer Novotny.
If the implementation of new Title IX regulations changes as a result of further court action, we will be in contact. For any questions regarding the regulations or our training materials, please contact your Ennis Britton attorneys.
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Jun 7, 2021 | General, School Management
This case arose because a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University (Portsmouth, Ohio) refused to abide by the University’s policy requiring that he refer students with pronouns corresponding to their gender identity. The professor is a devout Christian whose religious convictions influence his thoughts on human nature, marriage, gender, sexuality, morality, politics, and social issues.
At the start of the 2016-17 school year, the University informed its faculty that they were required to refer to students by their preferred pronouns. The professor was informed that he would be disciplined if he refused to use a pronoun that reflects a student’s self-asserted gender identity. In his class that semester, a student requested to be referred to utilizing the female pronouns, and the professor would not oblige. The professor then requested accommodations for his religious and personal views. The student then filed a Title IX complaint against the professor. The professor’s request for religious accommodations were denied by the University, and the Title IX complaint resulted in a conclusion that the professor created a hostile environment for the students in his class; a violation of the University’s nondiscrimination policies, which resulted in discipline.
Then, the professor filed a lawsuit alleging that the University violated his rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ohio Constitution, and his contract with the University.
The Sixth Circuit found that First Amendment free speech rules apply differently when it is government speech. Normally when public employees are speaking pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens with First Amendment protections: therefore, the Constitution does not protect their speech/communications from employer discipline. However, in this case, the Sixth Circuit highlighted its belief that professors at public universities retain First Amendment protection- at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship.
The Court rejected the argument that “…teachers have no First Amendment rights when teaching, or that the government can censor teacher speech without restriction.” Hardy v. Jefferson Cmty. Coll., 260 F.3d 671, 680 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court recognized the professor’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression within this case, including within that academic freedom the choice to use of pronouns to shape classroom discussion. At the university level, this professor was able to make choices regarding gender identity for appropriate classroom discussion in his political philosophy courses.
In summary, the Court remanded the case back to the lower court for the lower court to issue a decision in compliance with the First Amendment rights recognized by the Sixth Circuit.
What this means for your District
While this case deals with speech from a university professor, and not that of a K-12 educator, it is a good case to be aware of when faced with situations that may arise from staff members who refuse to refer to a transgender student with the student’s preferred pronouns or nicknames. Schools are required to recognize the academic freedoms that exist for educators- but how this will be balanced against the needs of minor students in the future will be one to watch. In this case, the Court was not remotely persuaded by the arguments of the University that a hostile environment was created by the professor’s actions against the transgender students in his class, because the Court was not presented with any evidence or arguments that the student(s) was denied any educational benefits or opportunities.
Meriwether v. Hartop, (C.A. 6, 2021) 992 F.3d 492
