Good for Vivian Geraghty! Reading through the judge’s order is a reminder, once again, how much time and resources are having to be wasted to fight back against this nonsense ideology. How many more $450,000 judgments is it going to take before school districts, and the larger society, decide to jettison any adherence it? Maybe along with a taxpayer revolt or two—as I assume it is the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for these judgments, along with the legal fees used to defend the school. From what I understood of the order, it appears this case was a particularly stupid one for the school to bring, as it admitted it had no policy on the issues for which Geraghty was constructively discharged. Meanwhile, I hope Geraghty does wonderful, enjoyable things with her hard-earned damages award.
I'm thrilled with this verdict and I applaud Ms. Geraghty for her integrity, courage and persistence.
In a way, the verdict sets a precedent, but in another way, maybe it doesn't, because Ms. Geraghty sued on religious grounds, embedded in the First Amendment.
The Northern District of Ohio agreed that Ms. Geraghty's speech was "compelled," in violation of the First Amendment. But might this judgment have been made easier to achieve due to the court's respect for religious freedom, rather than respect for free speech per se?
What about non-religious people who might sue under similar circumstances? Would they have a harder time winning a judgment on secular grounds?
Or maybe it doesn't matter, because trans issues tend to be adjudicated state by state?
Religious liberty carries a lot of weight in this country, which is fine, but it might have enabled the court to sidestep the medical and political implications of transgender ideology, thereby making the verdict less contentious. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just wondering.
In any case, it's a verdict to celebrate. Brava to you, Vivian Geraghty.
This occurred to me also, and I was reminded as well of the Forstater case, which was determined on grounds of belief (in the material reality of sex). Of course UK law is different, including that there is no constitutional free speech right. But I would be interested thoughts on that issue from folks like Kara who know this topic well. Meanwhile, this victory is one to savor, as you note.
I'm surprised there hasn't yet been, as far as I know, a lawsuit against the DOE for policies that are in conflict with the prepositions of the English language, the language that is supposed to be taught in schools.
I grew up in a small town not too far from Massillon, so I'm happy to see this.
The irony is palpable though. Just one day ago, Kara and WDI USA came out as staunch opponents of free speech for women, vowing to "eradicate" any woman's speech that is deemed by the WDI censors to be "pornography".
Good for Vivian Geraghty! Reading through the judge’s order is a reminder, once again, how much time and resources are having to be wasted to fight back against this nonsense ideology. How many more $450,000 judgments is it going to take before school districts, and the larger society, decide to jettison any adherence it? Maybe along with a taxpayer revolt or two—as I assume it is the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for these judgments, along with the legal fees used to defend the school. From what I understood of the order, it appears this case was a particularly stupid one for the school to bring, as it admitted it had no policy on the issues for which Geraghty was constructively discharged. Meanwhile, I hope Geraghty does wonderful, enjoyable things with her hard-earned damages award.
Yes, and then goes back to teaching!!
Underscoring the power of saying “no.” Hopefully school districts around the country are paying attention.
I'm thrilled with this verdict and I applaud Ms. Geraghty for her integrity, courage and persistence.
In a way, the verdict sets a precedent, but in another way, maybe it doesn't, because Ms. Geraghty sued on religious grounds, embedded in the First Amendment.
The Northern District of Ohio agreed that Ms. Geraghty's speech was "compelled," in violation of the First Amendment. But might this judgment have been made easier to achieve due to the court's respect for religious freedom, rather than respect for free speech per se?
What about non-religious people who might sue under similar circumstances? Would they have a harder time winning a judgment on secular grounds?
Or maybe it doesn't matter, because trans issues tend to be adjudicated state by state?
Religious liberty carries a lot of weight in this country, which is fine, but it might have enabled the court to sidestep the medical and political implications of transgender ideology, thereby making the verdict less contentious. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just wondering.
In any case, it's a verdict to celebrate. Brava to you, Vivian Geraghty.
This occurred to me also, and I was reminded as well of the Forstater case, which was determined on grounds of belief (in the material reality of sex). Of course UK law is different, including that there is no constitutional free speech right. But I would be interested thoughts on that issue from folks like Kara who know this topic well. Meanwhile, this victory is one to savor, as you note.
Thank you for your POV.
I'd also like to hear from Kara on this topic, when she has five minutes to spare...
bravo! Vivian. thank you.
I'm surprised there hasn't yet been, as far as I know, a lawsuit against the DOE for policies that are in conflict with the prepositions of the English language, the language that is supposed to be taught in schools.
I grew up in a small town not too far from Massillon, so I'm happy to see this.
The irony is palpable though. Just one day ago, Kara and WDI USA came out as staunch opponents of free speech for women, vowing to "eradicate" any woman's speech that is deemed by the WDI censors to be "pornography".
Sad.
LOL, yet another man afraid to lose his right to get off on women's subjugation.
When your free speech is taken away from you, you will deserve it.