A non-binary teacher has launched legal action against the Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools (Macs) after being denied the use of their preferred pronouns and title. The case has significant implications for the intersection of state and federal anti-discrimination laws in Australia.
Myka Sanders, who identifies with they/them pronouns and uses the title Mx, sought to have their gender identity recognized at Sacred Heart Girls College in Oakleigh, Melbourne. This request was met with resistance from Macs, which cited adherence to “the ideas of Catholic anthropology” as the basis for their refusal. Macs is the sixth largest education organization in Australia, highlighting the influence of its policies on educational practices.
The Independent Education Union (IEU) is actively supporting Sanders and has escalated the matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The IEU argues that the school’s actions violate state law. However, Macs contended that the case hinges on federal legislation, leading to a jurisdictional issue that the tribunal cannot address. The matter is set to be heard in the magistrates’ court next month.
While Sanders has been permitted to use their chosen name, their preferred pronouns have not been recognized, with the school sometimes using he/him pronouns in official documents. “I love working with the staff there. I love working with the students. It’s great, but it’s also really depressing, because I’m not allowed to be me,” Sanders expressed in an interview.
Under the Equal Opportunity Act, LGBTQ+ individuals in Victoria are protected from discrimination in religious schools unless a proportional justification exists. Conversely, the federal Sex Discrimination Act provides broad exemptions for religious institutions, which creates a complex legal landscape.
Ruth Gaze, a discrimination law expert at Melbourne University, emphasized the unique nature of this case. “Most of the time, state and federal anti-discrimination laws work in harmony. However, the conflict between the two is largely uncharted,” she noted. The outcome could set a precedent that affects both religious institutions and the rights of gender-diverse individuals.
If the court determines that the Equal Opportunity Act applies, Gaze warned, religious organizations may lobby for changes to the laws to protect their interests. Conversely, if the court rules that the Act does not apply, it could lead to increased discrimination for those in the gender-diverse community.
David Brear, general secretary of the IEU Victoria Tasmania, expressed deep concern over the implications of the case. “In 2025, it is troubling that an employer would refuse to use the correct gender identity,” he stated. He urged the Albanese government to fulfill its 2022 election promise to align federal legislation with progressive state laws like those in Victoria and Tasmania.
Brear added, “Myka is standing up not only for their own rights, but for the rights of everyone working for a faith-based employer. This case matters well beyond Victoria.” He warned that failing to defend anti-discrimination laws could put similar protections at risk nationwide.
In a statement, Macs declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings but emphasized that all individuals within the school community are treated with respect. They acknowledged that Sanders “remains a valued” member of the staff.
In an email from April 2024, which was reviewed by Guardian Australia, Macs stated that using titles such as Mx contradicts “Catholic anthropology.” The communication suggested that Sanders’ personal decision has broader implications for the school community.
Reflecting on the emotional toll of the situation, Sanders said, “It’s gut-wrenching every time I see a colleague get married, or there’s a change of name or title. They get to do it without any issue whatsoever, but I’m not allowed to.” They expressed a desire for the opportunity to use their correct pronouns, which they believe would allow them to “properly breathe out” for the first time since starting their employment.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case stands at the intersection of gender identity rights and religious freedom, with potential ramifications for similar cases across Australia.
