Pronouns are back in the news.

And, no, we’re not talking about neopronouns, the latest gloss on language insanity given an injection of immediacy by CNN, among others. You may have seen these odd words in print — “xe/xyr,” “ze/zir,” “fae/faer,” “ey/em/eir,” and “ae/aer” — trotted out by people who feel confined, or offended, or confined and offended, by traditional pronouns — like “he” or “she” — and most likely see the singular “they” as otiose, hackneyed, tired, so last century. These are people who don’t know what sex they are, or who haven’t decided what sex they are, or who are “transitioning” from one sex to another, or who simply want a lot of attention. (READ MORE: Indeed Jumps on the Woke Bandwagon)

But you’ve probably not actually heard someone using such pronominal adulterations. One survey published in 2020 indicated only 25 percent of LGBTQ+ types departed from the exclusive use of “he/him” and “she/her”; 4 percent use neopronouns, like “ze/zir.” Neopronouns seem more like language fashion statements, virtue signals that the user is all-in on the social construction of gender, that xe/ze/fae/ey/ae gets it. Plus, these words are less than practical substitutions for traditional pronouns; some are even indistinguishable in pronunciation — “xe” and “ze” are both pronounced “zee”; “ey” and “ae” are both pronounced “aye.”

Teacher Forced Out Over Pronoun Use Saved by Groff

The new news about pronouns is that a schoolteacher once called on the carpet for refusing to capitulate to this pronominal craziness — he wouldn’t buckle to student demands to address them by their preferred pronouns — might get another shot at justice.

And John Kluge, a music teacher formerly with the Brownsburg (Ind.) School District can thank the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy for his second chance.

In 2021, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2–1 vote, upheld a lower court ruling against Kluge, which said the teacher’s practice of calling students by their last names — to avoid sinning against his religious beliefs by using names and pronouns contrary to a student’s sex recorded at birth — “caused emotional harm to students and disruptions to the learning environment.” The court’s thinking was that Kluge’s practice singled out transgender students and made them feel awkward and uncomfortable, thereby disrupting the academic environment. This, the tribunal ruled, constituted an undue hardship on the school district. (READ MORE: Medically Transitioning Minors: The 6th Circuit Strikes Back)

However, the lower court relied on the standard set by the Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, Inc., a 1977 decision that ruled that any burden posing more than a “de minimis,” or minimal, cost on an employer allowed that employer to deny an employee a religious exemption from the law.

In Groff, the June 2023 ruling in favor of a Pennsylvania postal worker, the court basically undid Hardison as the standard in cases in which employees seek accommodation from their employers to practice their religious beliefs. The standard an employer must meet for establishing an “undue hardship” is no longer a “de minimis” cost but is instead whether such accommodation would “result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

As a result, the 7th Circuit has vacated the Kluge decision and remanded it to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Groff. The trial court will likely have to determine whether “emotional harm to students” and “learning disruptions” qualify as “substantial increased costs” in relation to its particular business –—namely, providing a free, universal public education.

Kluge is not the first teacher who has fallen into pronoun trouble. 

In April of last year, Shawnee State settled with philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether, agreeing that he can choose how and when to use pronouns — or not use pronouns, as he wishes — when addressing students who demand he use pronouns that do not comport with their biological sex. This agreement, which included a $400,000 payout, allows him to address students in a way consistent with his religious beliefs.

Whether Kluge finds equivalent vindication is yet to be determined. However, the Groff decision could redound in conservatives’ favor in any future legal issue of preferred pronoun usage. (READ MORE: On LGBTQ Suicides, Emotional Blackmail, and Inconvenient Facts)

It will certainly have a widespread effect on whether employees seeking religious accommodations will prevail in pending employment cases, including in employment cases already decided under the Hardison standard. 

Elizabeth Houghton LaGreca, an attorney with Epstein, Becker & Green P.C., said, “We’re in a challenging spot where employers may have made accommodation decisions based on the Hardison standard, and then now, those decisions are going to be assessed potentially under the Groff standard.”