The Teacher From Kansas Who Was Fired For Not Using A Student’s Preferred Pronouns Just Had A Massive Victory In Federal Court

It was recently reported that Kansas teacher, Pamela Ricard finally won the legal battle against transgender accommodating policies being implemented in public schools across the country after several months-long legal battle.

Richard, who was famously rebuked back in April 2021 because she failed to use one of her student’s “preferred pronouns” the Kansas school where she was employed at the time had an official policy that served to “not offend LGBTQ students”

Richard sued the school after they rebuked her. She argued her first and fourteenth amendment rights were violated by this school. Just recently, a federal court ruled that her termination by the school board was unconstitutional. According to the federal court, Richard’s failure to use the preferred pronouns was based on her religious Christian beliefs and according to the U.S. constitution, the school district cannot force her to follow guidelines like calling people by pronouns that are not the same as their biological sex.

“We need to be open and honest, have the students be open and honest with their parents and teachers.” Richards stated.

She believes that schools are forcing such curriculums and guidelines in academia without parents’ consent. “The parents are there to support us, we’re here to support the parents, the students. You have to have that open relationship for all of it to work together.” She added.

Several cases like these of school boards violating the first amendment rights of students, and faculty members are filed recently. Another notable case was of a Virginia Gym teacher, Tanner Cross who similarly to Richard, failed to use the preferred pronouns of a student. The court in this case also ruled in Tanner’s favor arguing that the school cannot enforce such guidelines that violate one’s beliefs.

Teachers, as well as parents across the country, are filing lawsuits against schools for enforcing such tyrannical policies.

The teacher avoids using pronouns with the students and uses their chosen names in class. However, since she has used the students’ legal names and pronouns in correspondence with their parents, she feels that she’s not being honest.

“Plaintiff believes that addressing students one way at school and a different way when speaking to their parents is dishonest,” the opinion states. “Being dishonest violates her sincere religious beliefs.”

The injunction will remain in place until May 18 or until Ricard’s contractual responsibilities to the district end, whichever comes last, Teeter wrote.

Even though the temporary order does not apply to other teachers, it could set a precedent, as similar policies are being discussed in other districts in the state.