Fired Virginia Teacher Wins Big In 'Preferred Pronoun' Dispute

Written by Published

In a significant victory for religious freedom and free speech, a former high school teacher in Virginia has been awarded a settlement of nearly $600,000 following his dismissal for refusing to use male pronouns for a female student.

Peter Vlaming, a French teacher with nearly seven years of service in the small city of West Point, Virginia, was dismissed in 2018 after a dispute over pronoun usage for a student in his French II course.

According to The Blaze, the student, referred to as "John Doe" in court documents, had previously accepted a female French name and female pronouns. However, by the time she enrolled in French II, she expressed a desire to be addressed by a more culturally masculine name. Vlaming, whose religious beliefs affirm that sex is immutable, attempted to accommodate the student by avoiding pronouns altogether and using her chosen masculine names.

This compromise, however, was not acceptable to the student's parent and school administrators. The parent insisted that Vlaming "should leave his principles and beliefs out of this and refer to [Doe] as a male." Assistant Principal Suzanne Aunspach echoed this sentiment, informing Vlaming that his "personal religious beliefs end at the school door" when they conflict with school policy.

The situation escalated when Vlaming inadvertently referred to Doe as "her" during a class session. Principal Jonathan Hochman recommended administrative leave for Vlaming, citing his failure to apologize satisfactorily. Despite Vlaming's willingness to use the student's chosen masculine names, then-Superintendent Laura Abel insisted on the use of masculine pronouns. When Vlaming refused, Abel recommended his termination for violating district policy on "harassment or retaliation against students and others on the basis of gender identity."

The West Point School Board complied, terminating Vlaming for his refusal to use the preferred pronouns and for insubordination. "Peter wasnt fired for something he said; he was fired for something he say. The school board violated his First Amendment rights under the Virginia Constitution and commonwealth law," stated Tyson Langhofer, ADF senior counsel.

In September 2019, Vlaming sued the district with the assistance of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a religious liberties legal group. His lawsuit claimed breach of contract and violation of his rights to free speech, free exercise, and due process. Despite an initial setback with a lower court dismissing his suit, the commonwealth supreme court reinstated it in December, affirming that the Virginia Constitution "seeks to protect diversity of thought, diversity of speech, diversity of religion, and diversity of opinion."

The district has agreed to pay Vlaming $575,000 in damages and attorney fees and to expunge the termination from his record. Current Superintendent Larry Frazier confirmed the settlement, expressing relief that it would not negatively impact the school community.

Vlaming expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating, "I was wrongfully fired from my teaching job because my religious beliefs put me on a collision course with school administrators who mandated that teachers ascribe to perspective on gender identitytheir preferred view." He added, "Im very grateful for the work of my attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom to bring my case to victory, and hope it helps protect every other teacher and professors fundamental First Amendment rights."

Langhofer also celebrated the court's ruling and the settlement, reiterating that Vlaming "couldnt in good conscience speak messages that he knew were untrue, and no school board or government official can punish someone for that reason." He concluded, "Were pleased to favorably settle this case on behalf of Peter and hope other government and school officials will take note of the high cost involved in failing to respect an Americans constitutionally protected freedoms." This case serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting individual freedom and the potential consequences of overstepping constitutional rights.