Nicholas Meriwether is a professor at Shawnee State University in Ohio. He has worked at the university for more than 25 years. In 2018, Meriwether filed a lawsuit because he was being told to use a transgender individual’s preferred pronouns and would not, due to his Christian religious beliefs. He claimed that this violated his religion and First Amendment rights of free speech and religion. It is important to note that Meriwether did offer a compromise, by saying he would call the student by their last name only (without a gender-based title). For background, Shawnee State University introduced a policy in 2016 that required the use of a student’s pronouns that match their gender identity. Meriwether refused to abide by this policy, and the university opened a Title IX investigation against him. It was found that his disobedience created a “hostile environment” in the classroom. A district court dismissed the case in 2018, however a three-judge panel from the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals revived the suit and sent it back to the lower court so that Meriwether could make his argument. Ultimately, Shawnee State University has recently settled to pay the professor $400,000 after four years. However, they still defend their case that they deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights and rights to freely exercise his religion. The university claims that their decision to settle was an economic decision. Thus, they still support the argument that their policy protects their students from discrimination and that they want to create a discrimination-free learning environment, while still allowing employees, students, visitors, etc. to express their religious views freely.
This case tackles the issue of free exercise of religion, as Dr. Meriwether’s rights were being restricted when he was being told that he must follow the policy. It is key to note that the pronoun policy was established after he already had the job for many years. If this was a policy when he originally applied for the position, maybe he would not have worked at the university. However, this was not in place when he applied, and even though university policies change and evolve, he believed he had the right to practice his religion here. Even if it meant not following the policy, Meriwether was not going to call the student by their preferred pronouns. Another significant point of this case is that he did compromise and say that he would address the student by their last name, which he argued did not place a substantial burden on him or the student. There is a compelling interest here in favor of Dr. Meriwether, as well as a substantial burden on his free exercise of religion. The argument of the other side is that there is a substantial burden on the student, because now they may feel mistreated and not safe in their school environment. However, the student is not young, nor impressionable. Therefore, the argument for Dr. Meriwether is that the student should understand that he is not doing this to be discriminatory, but rather because his religion does not allow that practice. This is not personal; it is just Meriwether trying to abide by the followings of his religion.
In my opinion, the university paying Dr. Meriwether the $400,000 was the correct thing to do. This policy was put in place long after Meriwether had worked at the school for a significant period. There were no past cases of him being discriminatory or hostile against his students; this was clearly just an example of him trying to practice his religion. The fact that he was willing to make a compromise also stuck out to me, because he was attempting to find a happy medium between abiding by his religious views, as well as avoiding calling the student by their unpreferred pronouns. He did not refuse to teach the student, he just wanted to call that abided by his religion. The university was obviously trying to protect its student, which is noble, but it must protect its professors as well. Dr. Meriwether was mistreated in this case, and he should not have been accused of these discriminatory acts, especially with no history of such in the past. The compelling interest is in favor of Dr. Meriwether because he is a professor who is practicing his religion, especially because he already had a longstanding career at the university. The student should be able to acknowledge the fact that Meriwether is not trying to be discriminatory. Thus, I believe there was a substantial burden placed on Dr. Meriwether, especially because his job and reputation were threatened when the university accused him of this action in the first place. I drew a connection with this case and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case because that involved members of the LGBTQ+ community as well, and someone saying an aspect of that community violated some of their religious values. The outcome of that case was in favor of the baker. These cases shows that free exercise of religion still does come into play quite often with these circumstances, and that it really does depend on all the details of the case. I think Shawnee State’s decision to settle was correct, but I think their motives for it might not have been so sincere. They claimed their decision to settle was for “economic purposes,” which makes me think they still do not support Dr. Meriwether freely exercising his religious beliefs. Therefore, I do believe Dr. Meriwether’s free exercise rights were violated in this situation, and that he should have been granted the $400,000 for the burden this placed on him, especially after these four years of deliberation.
Sources:
I think it is really important in this case to not that the policy requiring teachers to call students by their preferred pronouns was not enacted until after Meriwether was already a professor there. I also believe that this is a free exercise and free speech issue as they are trying to force Meriwether to say things that he doesn't want to or believe in. I think that it is important to note that this professor was willing to call the student by their last name showing that he wished to make a compromise while not going against his religious beliefs. I do see how this is a tough case, but I think that Meriwether should not have had his job taken from him for this.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Sam on this case, Meriwether should not have lost his job due to his seemingly failure to comply with newly implemented policies that that clash with aspects of his religious belief system. There is a direct substantial burden being placed on Meriwether because his job is on the line if he does not conform to the new policies on such matters, which have become prominent recently. As an educator, his job is to teach students curriculum, not be forced to go against your religion in identifying students. His willingness to compromise is very important in this case because it is one way that his religious devotion is legitimate while still trying to cooperative with the school and respectful to his students. This middle ground would no longer be pressuring or burdening Meriwether to exhibit acts against his religious convictions.
ReplyDeleteThese cases are really tricky, and it does seem to come down to tiny details, like in this case when the policy was put in place. Since the policy was put in place after Meriwether was hired it makes it even more complicated, but this is key and maybe if this policy was around before he worked here, he would have chosen somewhere else to be a professor at. Although this is really complicated, in the end I think it is constitutionally correct that Shawnee State University paid Meritwether. Meriwhether even tried addressing this in less restrictive means in order to not go against his religious beliefs. It is a difficult choice to make between your career and following what you believe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the commenters above that the point of contention is how Meriwether was hired prior to the enactment of this policy. Yet I think its important to note that this notion creates a slippery slope where one can argue that since a policy wasn't stated prior to hiring, they don't need to follow the policy. With that being said I think it would be extremely hard to prove that he should be forced to call the student by their preferred pronouns. The Free Exercise clause obviously outweighs the University's policies and will be prioritized in front of the Court.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can definitely see both sides of the case being that the school wanted to prevent discrimination and Meriwether wanted to protect his right to free exercise of religion, I would have to agree that the school did violate his first amendment rights. The most important fact of this case to me is the fact that Meriwether did offer a reasonable alternative to using pronouns by calling students by their last name as another form of identification. I understand that the school was trying to make sure that all students feel accepted, but in this case, it is also within Meriwether's free exercise rights act in the manner he did. Therefore, I would have to say that I agree with your interpretation and view of this case.
ReplyDeleteThis case is very similar to ones we have seen in the past, and even a topic that we have talked about in class. Similar to some above, I agree that this was a violation of his first amendment because Meriwether began to refer to them by no pronouns. It was also important to note that he was hired after the rule was put into action.
ReplyDelete