Rowland v. Mad River Local School District, Montgomery County, Ohio

1985-04-22

Headline: Court denies review in a firing over bisexuality, leaving the appeals court’s reversal intact and affecting public employees fired for revealing sexual orientation.

Holding: The Court denied review, leaving the lower court’s reversal intact and declining to decide whether a State may dismiss a nondisruptive public employee solely for revealing bisexuality.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the appeals court’s reversal in place so the lower ruling stands.
Keeps constitutional questions about LGBTQ public employees unresolved nationwide.
May make it harder for fired school employees to obtain Supreme Court review.

Topics: LGBT workplace rights, public employee speech, school employment, discrimination based on sexual orientation

Summary

Background

A public high school guidance counselor was suspended in December 1974 and not rehired in April 1975 after telling her secretary and some colleagues that she was bisexual. A jury found she was suspended and not rehired solely for that reason and also found that her mention of bisexuality did not interfere with job performance or school operations. The trial judge awarded damages under free speech and equal protection theories, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

Reasoning

The central question presented was whether a State may dismiss a nondisruptive public employee simply because she revealed a same sex preference. The Supreme Court declined to review the appeals court decision, so it did not resolve that question. In a written dissent, Justice Brennan argued the case raised important unresolved First Amendment and equal protection issues, noting the jury found no workplace disruption and that discrimination based on sexual preference raises significant constitutional concerns.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the appeals court reversal remains in place and the high court did not settle whether nondisruptive disclosures of sexual preference are protected. The denial leaves unresolved how lower courts should treat similar claims and means affected public employees will continue to rely on split lower-court rulings until the Supreme Court decides to take a similar case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the denial and would have granted review to address both free speech and equal protection questions presented by the jury findings.