7th Circuit Decides Religious Accommodation Case

September 05, 2025

Important Takeaways: The Supreme Court of the United States recently heightened the standard required for school districts to escape Title VII accommodation liability. School Districts must now show that the accommodation would create an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” objective hardship on the district’s business (school mission).

Facts: In the 2017 school year, Brownsburg High School created a policy that allowed students to change their preferred names in PowerSchool. As part of the policy, students could only make the change if they supplied documentation from their parents and a health care provider regarding the reason for the change. Brownsburg teachers were required to call the student by the name and pronouns used in PowerSchool.

John Kluge taught orchestra at Brownsburg High School from 2014 until 2018. Kluge believed his religion prevented him from using the PowerSchool names because he would be encouraging students’ transgender identities, which is a sin.

Kluge met with the principal and superintendent, who gave Kluge three options. Kluge could follow the policy, resign, or be suspended pending termination. The following week, Kluge and the administration agreed to a fourth option: a written accommodation to the policy, allowing Kluge to call students by their last names.

Soon after the policy went into effect, the District received numerous complaints from students, faculty, and parents. The first complaint came from Craig Lee, the faculty advisor for the Equality Alliance Club at Brownsburg High School. Lee claimed that the students in the club were troubled by “a teacher” who was not following the PowerSchool rule and instead referred to students by only their last name. Lee claimed that because Kluge was not following the rule, Kluge’s two transgender students received emotional distress and harm. Finally, Lee included that three other teachers, none of whom had seen Kluge’s classes, felt strongly that the accommodation was harming students.

Additionally, the parent of a transgender student wrote a letter to the administration asking for Kluge to call the student by their PowerSchool name. A month later, the parent alleged that Kluge continued to refer to the transgender male student as Miss. The parent called the conduct “disrespectful and hurtful.”

The Brownsburg High School principal also received numerous informal complaints from teachers. These informal complaints were made in passing to the principal and not written down at any time.

However, much of the information in the complaints is disputed by Kluge, the violin teacher, and Kluge’s students. The violin teacher only heard Kluge use last names when referring to students and never heard the students complain about the policy firsthand or by rumor. Two of Kluge’s students said they were always called by their last names and that Kluge never deviated from that practice with other students. One of those students was partnered with a transgender student and never noticed Kluge treat the student differently. Finally, Kluge did not notice any disruption between the performing arts faculty, who still regularly ate lunch together and got along well.

The administration decided that all teachers must adhere to the PowerSchool rule starting the following school year. Kluge handed in a letter of resignation effective at the end of the school year. At the end of the year, Kluge decided to withdraw his resignation, but the administration had already accepted it and posted the job as vacant. Kluge attended the board meeting to protest the acceptance of his resignation and plead with the board to reinstate him. The board voted to accept his resignation.

Court findings: Kluge sued the District under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for (1) failing to accommodate his religion and (2) retaliating against Kluge for engaging in protected religious conduct.

Under Title VII, employers cannot refuse to hire or later terminate an employee because of their religion. However, suppose an employee seeks an accommodation that would create an undue hardship on the employer’s business. In that case, the employer can refuse to accommodate the employee without being liable under Title VII.

To win an accommodation claim, the employee must show (1) the practice is religious in nature and conflicts with the employer’s requirements; (2) the employee notified his employer of the religious practice; and (3) the need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor for the adverse employment decision.

The employer may then refute the claim by stating that an accommodation would bear an undue hardship. Undue means any “requisite burden, privation, or adversity must rise to an ‘excessive’ or ‘unjustifiable’ level.” Hardship is more severe than a ‘mere burden’ imposed on the employer.

The lower court granted summary judgment on all claims to the District. When a party wins on summary judgment, the judge decides, as a matter of law, that there is no way a reasonable jury could find in favor of the other party. To win, all relevant facts must not be disputed. Additionally, all inferences must be made in favor of the non-moving party. In other words, to succeed on summary judgment, the moving party cannot rely on disputed facts. In this case, the lower court found that there were no disputes regarding material facts and that the numerous complaints by the community represent a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to rescind the accommodation.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Specifically, the appellate court found many disputes with the information used to show an undue hardship. The District’s mission was to “foster a safe, inclusive learning environment for all.” The Seventh Circuit did not find any evidence of a student’s safety in jeopardy because of the accommodation. Additionally, the only fact not in dispute was that Kluge called students by their last name. However, the student and faculty response was a mixed bag that a jury needs to resolve. In short, there are disputed facts material to the claim that stop any court from awarding summary judgment.

The Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s order of summary judgment and remanded the case back to the lower court to resolve the disputed facts.

What this means: The Supreme Court passed down the Groff decision and heightened the standard required to show that a religious accommodation creates an undue hardship on the school district. The new standard requires the school district to produce facts that demonstrate an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” objective hardship on the district’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment action.

Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 5, 2025. Read it here.

Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.