Federal lawsuit alleged UofL professor was dismissed over public remarks

A federal lawsuit asserted that a University of Louisville professor was effectively dismissed after making public remarks about transgender identity and clinical approaches to gender dysphoria. The complaint characterized the dispute as one involving academic freedom, employment retaliation and First Amendment protections.

The action was filed on behalf of Allan Josephson by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy organization. The complaint alleged that university officials discriminated against Josephson because of his stated views. At the time of the original report, a university spokesperson confirmed that Josephson remained employed as a professor and worked in a clinic providing psychiatric care to children. The university declined to address pending litigation.

Public remarks and internal response

According to the complaint, Josephson had served as chief of the university’s Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology. In that role, he participated in expert testimony and public panels concerning young people experiencing gender dysphoria, a term describing distress that can occur when a person’s gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth.

The filing said Josephson questioned certain gender-affirming approaches and argued for an alternative clinical framework. During a 2017 panel hosted by a conservative research organization, he expressed views disputing aspects of transgender identity and advised parents to guide children toward living in accordance with their sex assigned at birth.

The complaint said staff associated with the university’s LGBT center became aware of those remarks and raised concerns within his division. It further alleged that colleagues differed over whether the remarks justified discipline and that a majority did not support removing him from his leadership position.

Demotion and nonrenewal claims

The filing alleged that Josephson was moved from his division-chief role to a faculty position in late 2017. It said administrators viewed his public remarks as inconsistent with the institution’s educational approach, while the complaint disputed that characterization.

About a year later, according to the lawsuit, the university told Josephson that his contract would not be renewed when its term ended. The complaint said administrators referred to a change in direction but did not provide him with an evaluation explaining the decision.

The lawsuit argued that the actions were intended to discourage Josephson and other faculty members from expressing views administrators considered objectionable. It maintained that he spoke in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the university.

Competing principles

Counsel for Josephson argued that a public university should not penalize a faculty member solely for holding a disputed viewpoint. In an interview accompanying the original report, counsel said the comments reflected Josephson’s clinical opinion and framed the dispute as a question of viewpoint neutrality.

The university’s diversity statement, linked in the original account, emphasized an inclusive environment and protection from prejudice or bias. The dispute therefore placed several principles in tension: institutional responsibility, respectful treatment of transgender people, professional standards, academic freedom and public-employee speech rights.

Josephson had previously consulted with the legal organization on disputes involving school bathroom and locker-room access, according to the complaint. The filing named several university administrators in their official or individual capacities. This archived summary does not independently resolve the complaint’s factual or legal claims.