Oregon social worker Rod Theis is fighting back after school officials ordered him to remove children’s books affirming biological sex from his office, threatening his job if he refused to comply.

At a Glance

• Rod Theis, a licensed clinical social worker, has filed a lawsuit against Oregon’s InterMountain Education Service District for ordering him to remove books affirming biological sex
• The district threatened termination if Theis didn’t remove the books “He is He,” “She is She,” and “Johnny the Walrus” from his office, labeling them “transphobic”
• The school allows other personal items and political expressions in workspaces, suggesting selective censorship
• Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys argue the district’s actions violate Theis’ First Amendment rights
• The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Pendleton Division

Educational Worker Fights Book Ban

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Rod Theis, a licensed clinical social worker in Oregon, challenging what they describe as unconstitutional censorship. The InterMountain Education Service District demanded Theis remove three children’s books from his office: “He is He,” “She is She,” and “Johnny the Walrus.” District officials labeled these books as “transphobic” and threatened Theis with termination if he didn’t comply with their removal order, despite allowing other personal items and political expressions in employee workspaces.

The lawsuit contends that the district’s actions represent a clear case of viewpoint discrimination. According to court documents, the books were displayed alongside other decorative items in Theis’ office and had caused no disruption in the workplace. Even the school principal reportedly did not find the books offensive or inappropriate when they were initially displayed. The case highlights growing tensions between religious expression and institutional policies regarding gender identity in educational settings.

Constitutional Rights at Stake

At the heart of this legal battle is whether a government employer can compel an employee to remove materials expressing a traditional view of biological sex while permitting expressions of the opposing viewpoint. The lawsuit claims that the district’s policy effectively silences one perspective while allowing another, running afoul of First Amendment protections and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment.

“This case isn’t about books; it’s about public officials telling an employee that he isn’t allowed to express a view that differs from their own.”, ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said.

Theis maintains that his desire to display the books stems from his religious convictions about biological sex, which he believes he has the constitutional right to express. The ADF argues that the district’s approach is particularly problematic because it allows subjective identity-based viewpoints while forbidding expressions of a biological view of sex. The legal team contends that government officials cannot censor speech simply because they disagree with the message.

Educator Stands Firm on Values

Theis has emphasized that his commitment to treating students with dignity remains unwavering, regardless of the legal dispute. The educator has worked with students for years and insists that his personal beliefs have never interfered with his professional responsibilities. According to the lawsuit, Theis simply wishes to maintain his constitutional right to express his views, just as his colleagues are permitted to express theirs.

“I want every student I work with to experience kindness, dignity and respect during their time with me. This is an important aspect of what I do in the educational environment. Government officials are wrong to tell me I can’t express my sincere religious beliefs about male and female. Every American, including my coworkers, has the same freedom to express their own views on the subject.”, said Rod Theis.

The case, officially titled Theis v. InterMountain Education Service District Board of Directors, is being handled by the ADF Center for Academic Freedom, which has a history of defending First Amendment rights for students and faculty against government censorship. The outcome could have significant implications for free speech protections in educational settings nationwide, particularly regarding expressions of traditional views on controversial social topics.