9th Circuit Supports Teachers Fired Over Trans Guidance Opposition

June 25, 2025

A federal appellate court has ruled in favor of two Oregon educators who were fired and reinstated after opposing school district policy regarding students using restrooms that do not align with their biological sex.

Christianity Daily reports that a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released the decision on Monday, reversing a district court judgment that had dismissed the educators’ claims of a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Rachel Sager, an assistant principal, and Katie Medart, a health and science teacher, started the “I Resolve” campaign in 2021, in response to their district’s “Gender Identity, Transgender, Name, and Pronoun Guidance” policy.

That policy states that “the District will not prohibit students from accessing restrooms, locker rooms or other facilities which may be separated by gender, that are associated with the student’s preferred gender identity.”

Sager and Medart had consulted with district leadership while launching the campaign and were given no indication that their project might be violated district policies.

According to Christianity Daily, after complaints from other staff members, the two teachers were both put on paid administrative leave and then subsequently fired after district officials determined that they had violated district policy.

The teachers were reinstated in late 2021 to an online position that limited their direct interaction with students.

The Ninth Circuit recognized that the district had violated the teachers’ rights by engaging in content and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment as well as violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.

The court also found that the district had violated the teachers’ rights under Title VII by terminating them for biblically-based views on gender and sexuality.

The court stated, “vigilance is necessary to ensure that public employers do not use authority over employees to silence discourse, not because it hampers public functions but simply because superiors disagree with the content of employees’ speech.”

Photo: top, Credit: Screenshot/YouTube/Alliance Defending Freedom