Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Melbourne teacher Myka Sanders is suing his Catholic school after it declined to use his preferred pronouns. The case could establish a nationwide precedent for religious freedom in faith-based education.

A legal battle taking place in Victoria could determine whether faith-based schools can uphold Christian teachings on sex and gender without facing legal penalties.

Myka Sanders, a teacher at Sacred Heart Girls College in Oakleigh, Melbourne, is suing Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools (MACS) after the school declined to use his preferred pronouns in official communications.

The hearing is scheduled in the Melbourne Magistrates Court later this month and could progress to the High Court of Australia.

“This case could finally determine how Federal and State discrimination laws and religious exemptions interact,” explained Mike Southon in a recent email from Freedom for Faith.

“Its outcome may have far-reaching consequences for religious freedom in schools nationwide.”

Monica Doumit, Freedom for Faith board member and Director of Public Affairs and Engagement for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, recently explained that MACS’s stance reflects Catholic teaching on gender.

“The school’s approach is rooted in the understanding that biological sex is a fundamental reality, and this underpins the educational mission entrusted to Catholic institutions,” she said.

The Independent Education Union of Australia (IEUA), representing 75,000 non-government school employees, is supporting Sanders. The union seeks compensation and legal orders to prevent further alleged breaches of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act.

“The Albanese government is also under pressure from the union to tighten federal anti-discrimination laws in line with Victoria and Tasmania,” Southon warns.

Federal Versus State Law Clash

The case exposes a clash between Victoria’s law, which restricts religious exemptions, and the federal Sex Discrimination Act, which gives faith-based schools wider legal protection.

As Professor Neil Foster, legal scholar and Freedom for Faith board member, has explained:

Where a State or Territory law dealing with discrimination provides a narrower balancing clause in relation to religious bodies or educational institutions than the Commonwealth law provides, the State or Territory law will, to the extent of that inconsistency, be inoperative by virtue of s 109 of the Constitution.

This means that if state rules limit a school’s ability to act according to its faith, federal law can override those limits — potentially allowing schools to follow their religious principles without breaching state regulations.

Earlier, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that protections for religious freedom are treated differently under State and Federal law. Section 109 of the Constitution gives federal law priority when conflicts arise, a key point likely to be tested if the case moves forward.

“The case has the potential to require the courts to address whether an organisation can rely on a religious freedom right granted by Commonwealth law, if that right is not recognised by State law,” Foster added. “I believe any action against the school should fail.”

The Heart of the Dispute

The conflict began when Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools declined Sanders’ request to use the title “Mx” instead of “Mr” and the pronoun “they” in official communications.

Under Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act, “gender identity” includes personal references such as pronouns or titles. For discrimination to be unlawful, it must involve unfavourable treatment “because of that attribute” or practices that indirectly disadvantage persons with that attribute.

While Sanders was directed not to use the title “Mx,” she has not been disciplined or dismissed.

MACS contends that all of its teachers are expected to use titles aligned with biological sex — a policy the school applies equally across staff.

“This personal decision by a staff member has consequences that affect the whole school community,” the school stated.

“It illustrates an ideological shift from Catholic teaching and an inability of the staff member to uphold the vision and mission of the Catholic school.”

Legal Protections for Religious Schools

Section 83A of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act allows discrimination in employment only when it relates to a staff member’s religious belief or activity. Because Sanders’ request is not based on religion, MACS cannot rely on this provision for protection.

By contrast, section 38 of the federal Sex Discrimination Act provides broader protection.

“Decisions in relation to staff which are based on the need to avoid injury to religious susceptibilities of adherents are made lawful,” Foster explained in his legal opinion. In other words, schools acting in good faith may apply policies that reflect deeply held religious convictions without breaching the law.

The case highlights the challenge that Australian faith-based schools face in upholding Christian teachings while managing the demands of individual staff members.

Southon reinforced the broader significance of the case for faith-based education in Australia, writing, “This is not simply about pronouns. It is about whether schools can operate according to their deeply held beliefs without fear of legal reprisal.”

Freedom for Faith has said it will continue monitoring the case given that the outcome could set a precedent for religious freedom in schools nationwide.

___

Image courtesy of Unsplash.