SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Paulsen
Meriwether v. Hartop
Citation:
992 F.3d 492 (2021)Facts
Nicholas Meriwether served as a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University for twenty-five years with an exemplary record. As a devout Christian, he believes God created humans as either male or female, that sex is fixed from conception, and cannot be changed regardless of feelings or desires. In 2016, the university announced a policy requiring professors to use students’ preferred pronouns reflecting their self-asserted gender identity, regardless of professors’ personal or religious convictions. When Meriwether sought clarification, officials confirmed the policy applied without exception and pointed to the university’s nondiscrimination policy prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity. Department Chair Jennifer Pauley responded to his concerns with hostility, stating Christians are “primarily motivated out of fear” and should be “banned from teaching courses regarding that religion,” and that religion’s “presence in higher education is counterproductive.” In January 2018, during a Political Philosophy class using the Socratic method, Meriwether addressed a student he perceived as male by saying “Yes, sir.” After class, the student (Doe) demanded Meriwether use feminine titles and pronouns, becoming hostile and threatening Meriwether’s termination. Meriwether proposed a compromise: referring to Doe by last name only while using pronouns for other students. Dean Milliken initially accepted this accommodation, but later reversed course after Doe complained again, demanding Meriwether use female pronouns or face discipline. The university rejected Meriwether’s request to include a syllabus disclaimer explaining his religious beliefs. Throughout the semester, Doe participated actively and received a high grade. The university conducted a Title IX investigation interviewing only four witnesses, none of whom (except Meriwether and Doe) testified about interactions between them. The investigation concluded Meriwether created a hostile environment, and the university placed a written warning in his file threatening suspension or termination for future violations. During grievance proceedings, Provost Jeffrey Bauer openly laughed when the union representative explained Meriwether’s religious beliefs, refused to discuss academic freedom or religious discrimination aspects, and compared Meriwether’s convictions to racism and sexism.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.