Publication Date
12-1-2024
Abstract
In 2020, the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, a case about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bostock interpreted Title VII to prohibit employers from using an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity in adverse employment decisions. Many federal circuit courts and the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) have used Bostock’s reasoning to conclude that Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 prohibits schools from treating a student adversely based on that student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. However, many states and school districts have mandated the intentional use of the incorrect name and pronouns of their transgender and nonbinary students. And even in school districts with gender-affirming policies, some teachers have asserted religious objections to using students’ names and pronouns that match their gender identity. This Note argues that Congress or the Supreme Court must settle the current circuit split to decide that Title IX, consistent with Bostock, prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. This will protect students who are transgender or nonbinary from being subjected to classroom environments where their teachers intentionally use incorrect names and pronouns. This Note further argues that this protection is especially important when public school teachers request that the school give them a religious accommodation that excuses them from using their transgender and nonbinary students’ name and pronouns.
First Page
551
Recommended Citation
Ariell Bachman, "Recognize Me as Who I Am": Names, Pronouns, and the Intersection of Title VII and Title IX, 102 Denv. L. Rev. 551 (Winter 2025).