I (he/him) grew up in a small farm town in Western New York. I represent a number of institutions of higher education, as well as a number of faith-based non-profits. So, when an article was printed in last Friday’s New York Times that merged those things together? That’s like chocolate and peanut butter; it got my attention.
This blog looks at reports of the recent firing of two employees at Houghton University. At this point it is impossible to know the “true facts.” I focus here on issues that got the Times’ reporter’s attention.
Houghton, located in rural Western New York (I have friends who are graduates of the school), was founded in 1883. According to its website, it provides a “challenging, Christ-centered education in the liberal arts and sciences to students from diverse traditions and economic backgrounds. Houghton remains focused on preparing and equipping students to serve God fully and faithfully in and labor as scholar-servants in a changing world.”
Houghton is affiliated with the Wesleyan Church, rooted in the Methodist tradition, which the Times article says “teaches that ‘gender confusion and dysphoria are ultimately the biological, psychological, social and spiritual consequences of the human race’s fallen condition.’ It views ‘adult gender nonconformity as a violation of the sanctity of human life.’”
Two residence hall directors – Raegan Zelaya and Shua Wilmot – did something we see happening a lot these days. They began to include their preferred pronouns at the end of their work emails: “she/her” and “he/him.” According to the reporting, they thought they were doing a good thing: following what they viewed as an emerging professional standard and sending a message of inclusivity. And that’s when things got wonky.
The Times continued: “Ms. Zelaya and Mr. Wilmot, neither of whom is transgender, said they had professional and pastoral reasons for including their pronouns, but also a practical one: They both have uncommon, gender-neutral names, and said they have often been misgendered in email correspondence. ‘There’s the professional piece to it, and the practical piece, and there’s also an inclusive piece, and I think that’s the piece this institution doesn’t want,’ Mr. Wilmot, 29, said.”
Administrators told them to remove the pronouns from their email signatures, saying they violated a new policy. They refused. They were fired.
A Houghton spokesperson said in a statement that Houghton “has never terminated an employment relationship based solely on the use of pronouns in staff email signatures.” Ms. Zelaya’s termination letter, however, (a photo of which she shared online), stated that she was fired “as a result of your refusal to remove pronouns in your email signature” as well as for criticizing an administration decision to the student newspaper. Ok, so that’s awkward.
The firings resulted in a petition of protest from alumni and some current students that expressed concern over a variety of events that have occurred at Houghton over the past couple of years. University President Wayne Lewis wrote a lengthy response, stating that the protest letter was “incomplete at best and incredibly misleading.” Of import here, President Lewis stated: “[w]hile we require that all Houghton employees be active Christians, our employees come from a range of Christian traditions. We do, however, require as a condition of employment that all employees be respectful of the positions, doctrine, and beliefs of the university.”
So, you see, you can be any type of Christian you want in your personal life and get to work at Houghton. But you cannot bring your Christian views to work if they differ from Houghton’s doctrine. Ok, I get it. Infighting among Christians (and other religions) is not new or unusual. See, e.g., Martin Luther; the anti-Popes of Avignon; Roger Williams and the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, (thank you Wikipedia) or any one of a number of other past and present examples of intolerance of those of the same faith. You know the acronym “WWJD”? There always seems to be disagreement on that.
Why is all of this of any legal interest? What’s the takeaway?
First, the “pronoun issue” is everywhere. Put aside grammar concerns with the singular “they.” Gender and sexual identity issues are hot button topics in our current culture – this is another way for folks of one view to express their disagreement (to put it gently) with those who take a different view. Note here: I would not be at all surprised if there was an intentional teeing up of the issue here, maybe by both sides, for press coverage. Oops. I mean to “raise awareness.”
Second, it is true: a private employer has the right to tell employees what they can – and cannot – put on the employer’s email, including in the signature line. One case that comes to mind is the employee who signed off emails with “have a blessed day.” That comment was found irksome by the employer. The employee’s termination was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. Note here: Context is important. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Third, there’s the Constitutional component: to what extent does the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom permit a religious organization to treat gay and transgender people differently from others? Don’t anti-discrimination laws apply? Note here: while Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA’s protections do apply to religious organizations, the law’s “ministerial exception” has been held to permit discrimination based on otherwise protected categories including race and disability.
Finally, before the end of this term, the Supreme Court will decide Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (oral argument held April 18, 2023). The issue presented is the extent to which there is more than a de-minimis requirement for employee religious accommodation requests. Changing the existing law here would mess with the Court’s ruling in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), decided over 45 years ago.
We will continue to monitor developments in this area and report back.