1. What would you have done if you had been the school administrator receiving calls in this situation?

2. Do you think the school was correct in ignoring the teacher’s record?

3. Does it make a difference that this matter did not arise at the teacher’s instigation, but in response to a question from a student? Explain.

Issue: Whether bias against a public school teacher’s same-gender sexual orientation provides a rational basis upon which the state can treat her differently, less well, than other similarly situated heterosexual teachers.

Facts: A tenured, 19-year high school teacher and award-winning volleyball coach with an unblemished record was asked by a student if she was a lesbian. The teacher replied that she was. This resulted in numerous meetings with school district administration discussing the teacher’s sexual orientation, removal of her coaching responsibilities, and a letter being put in her personnel file. The teacher sued on the basis of a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Decision: No. The court said the Fourteenth Amendment’s plain language prohibits a state government or agency from engaging in intentional discrimination, even on the basis of sexual orientation, unless there is a rational basis for doing so. The court found, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that animus directed at a defined minority cannot be supported under the Equal Protection Clause. The court said the “negative reaction” some members of the community may have to gays is not a proper basis for discriminating against them if it based on nothing more than unsupported assumptions, outdated stereotypes, and animosity. Here, the court found no job-related justification for not assigning the teacher to continue to be the volleyball coach nor did the school system demonstrate any rational relationship between the teacher’s sexual orientation and her competency as a teacher or coach or her job performance as a coach—a position she held for many years with distinction.