Ramirez v. Oakland Unified School District

Background

Mirella Ramirez taught primarily Spanish-language kindergarten classes at Oakland Unified School District’s Melrose Leadership Academy from 2017 to 2024. She alleged that her Catholic faith prevented her from using pronouns that differed from a person’s biological sex assigned at birth. After a student asked her to use male pronouns, the student’s mother confirmed the request. Ramirez said she could not comply because of her faith.

After complaints, school officials told Ramirez that California law and district policy required her to use the student’s preferred pronouns. The student was moved to another classroom. Officials later reprimanded Ramirez, investigated complaints, and recommended her dismissal. The district offered accommodations, including using students’ first or last names, teaching another grade level, or teaching at another school. Ramirez rejected those accommodations, was suspended with pay, and was terminated after the District Board found that she violated California Education Code section 220 and district policy.

Ramirez brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of freedom of speech, including compelled speech, retaliation, and content and viewpoint discrimination; free exercise of religion; and freedom from unconstitutional conditions. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims against the school district based on sovereign immunity and the section 1983 requirement that a defendant be a qualifying legal person. They moved to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants based on qualified immunity and failure to state a claim.

Rulings

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It held that Oakland Unified School District was an arm of the state under the Ninth Circuit’s three-factor test concerning the state’s intent, control, and responsibility for the entity’s funding and judgments. The court concluded that all three factors favored sovereign immunity.

The court held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, which generally protects government officials from personal liability unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in the specific circumstances. The court found no binding, sufficiently similar precedent that would have put the defendants on notice that their conduct violated Ramirez’s speech or religious-exercise rights. It also applied the same reasoning to the derivative unconstitutional-conditions claim.

Separately, the court held that the complaint failed to state a claim. It concluded that Ramirez’s use or nonuse of a student’s pronouns occurred as part of her official teaching duties and therefore was not protected speech under the First Amendment. The court also held that the complaint did not plausibly allege hostility toward Ramirez’s religion because the alleged discipline and enforcement of the facially neutral policy did not, by themselves, show religious hostility. The court treated the unconstitutional-conditions claim as failing for the same reasons.

Disposition

All claims against Oakland Unified School District were dismissed with prejudice. The claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice, and the court allowed Ramirez to file an amended complaint within 28 days. Judge Beeler signed the order on May 27, 2025.