Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
Forced to choose between her faith and her job, Valerie Kloosterman has spent years in court battling for the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights of herself — and others.
Valerie Kloosterman, a physician’s assistant who was fired by the University of Michigan Health System (UMHW) after she requested a religious accommodation to refrain from using pronouns that conflict with biological sex and from referring patients for gender transition treatments, had her case heard earlier this month before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
She was deeply committed to providing the highest quality care to all patients, treating everyone with professionalism and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation or stated gender identity. Her dedication was recognized through outstanding performance reviews, with supervisors describing her as professional and a pleasure to work with.
When the University of Michigan took over the rural health center where she worked in 2021, they required all staff to affirm patients who believed that they had a different gender identity than their biological sex.
As part of this, Kloosterman told Fox News that she was required to complete a diversity training module that mandated her to affirm statements about sexual orientation and gender identity that conflicted with her Christian faith.
“Two of those questions specifically stated that gender was fluid. I couldn’t put, ‘No, I don’t believe that, as we were made in the image of God, it’s something that God designed us to be. It’s not something that we’re assigned with at birth.’ But I couldn’t put, ‘No.’ It wouldn’t let me complete the mandatory survey, and they had already stated you would be terminated if you didn’t fill it out,” she said.
She also refused to use pronouns that conflicted with biological reality and for declining to refer patients for transgender medical procedures — both decisions rooted in her deeply held Christian faith and medical judgment. She then asked for a religious exemption to the requirements.
Despite her exemplary record as a healthcare professional, a Michigan Health representative with no medical background berated Kloosterman, calling her “evil” and a “liar” and openly disparaging her religious beliefs. She was even blamed for suicides related to gender dysphoria.
Less than a month later, she was fired. Kloosterman was devastated, tearfully explaining that “I wanted to work there my entire career.”
In response, First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit in October 2022 against Michigan Health on her behalf, arguing that the University of Michigan had violated her First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech and that health officials had engaged in religious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Although a federal judge found in favor of Kloosterman, allowing her lawsuit to proceed, Michigan Health appealed the case by invoking its right to use arbitration as a way to fight against Kloosterman. As a result, the case has continued to wind itself through the courts and ended up before the Sixth Circuit appeals court in early February.
“It is intolerant and unconstitutional for employers to demand that medical professionals like Valerie abandon their religious beliefs in order to remain employed,” said Roger Byron, senior counsel for First Liberty. “The University of Michigan Health-West system is sending a message that religious health care workers are not welcome and need not apply. We hope Michigan Health is held accountable for its discrimination.”
The right to the free exercise of faith is a foundational principle in the United States, protected by the First Amendment and federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Despite these freedoms, conflicts between religious convictions and woke workplace policies are becoming more frequent.
Medical professionals like Kloosterman should never be forced to compromise their religious beliefs to keep their jobs. She has the right to return to work without violating her deeply held convictions, allowing her to continue serving her patients and community with integrity.
Workplace religious discrimination is not only unjust but also illegal. Federal law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs unless it creates an undue hardship on the business. In this case, granting Kloosterman an accommodation would not have hindered patient care, yet she was still penalized for her faith.
No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their career. America’s laws exist to protect religious liberty, ensuring that individuals are not punished for living according to their beliefs. A victory for Kloosterman would be a victory for all who face discrimination for their faith in the workplace, reinforcing the fundamental freedoms upon which this nation was built.
Photo: Valerie Kloosterman Credit: First Liberty Institute
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
Notifications
