RICHMOND, Va. (Legal Newsline) – A Virginia school board can’t retaliate against a teacher who expressed his opposition to a proposed rule that would allow kids to declare themselves transgender.
The Virginia Supreme Court on August 30 affirmed an injunction against the Loudoun County School Board, which placed physical education teacher Tanner Cross on administrative leave for comments he made at a meeting regarding Policy 8040 – the “rights of Transgender Students and Gender-Expansive Students.”
Cross, who works in an elementary school, said his religious beliefs prevent him from thinking someone born a male is actually a female, and that the lack of guidance from adults to kids with gender dysphoria is “abuse to a child.”
The decision to allow Cross to keep teaching was reported by The Lion. On May 25, Cross spoke these words at a school board meeting during which the proposed transgender policy was discussed:
“My name is Tanner Cross. And I am speaking out of love for those who suffer with gender dysphoria. 60 Minutes, this past Sunday, interviewed over 30 young people who transitioned. But they felt led astray because lack of pushback, or how easy it was to make physical changes to their bodies in just 3 months.
“They are now de-transitioning. It is not my intention to hurt anyone. But there are certain truths that we must face when ready. We condemn school policies like 8040 and 8035 because it will damage children, defile the holy image of God. I love all of my students, but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences. I’m a teacher but I serve God first. And I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it is against my religion. It’s lying to a child. It’s abuse to a child. And it’s sinning against our God.”
The following evening, Cross was informed he was being put on administrative leave for having a disruptive impact on Leesburg Elementary School. He was banned from Loudoun County Schools property and events.
His lawsuit alleged the district retaliated against him for exercising his free speech rights, and that his suspension had the effect of chilling his future speech.
The trial judge ruled a relative lack of complaints from parents meant Cross had not really disrupted things at the school and that his suspension impacted his constitutionally protected speech.
“The only disruption the Defendants can point to is that a tiny minority of parents requested that Cross not interact with their children,” the Virginia Supreme Court wrote.
“However, the Defendants identify no case in which such a nominal actual or expected disturbance justified restricting speech as constitutionally valued as Cross’ nor have they attempted to explain why immediate suspension and restricted access to further Board meetings was the proportional or rational response to addressing the concerns of so few parents.”