PITTSBURGH – The Pine-Richland School District has asserted that a plaintiff parent’s lawsuit – one which argues that one of its policies designed to protect the privacy of transgender students instead prevents parents from learning and making decisions about the gender status of their own children – is meritless and should be dismissed.
Jane Doe first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 12 versus Pine-Richland School District, of Gibsonia.
The case concerns the District’s policy numbered AR 103(B), which states, in part: “The purpose of this administrative regulation is to provide additional information and direction about gender and gender identity” and that “All students– regardless of age – have a right to privacy and this right includes the right to keep one’s transgender status private at school.”
According to AR 103(B), disclosing a student’s “transgender status” to the student’s “parents/guardians…may also violate privacy laws, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)” and that “notifying a student’s parent/guardian about his or her gender identity or transition may be unnecessary.”
However, according to the lawsuit, AR 103(B) “goes further than requiring that School District personnel keep critical details about a child’s health, welfare, and upbringing secret from parents or guardians.”
Instead, the suit said AR 103(B) “also requires that the School District engage in a secret psychological evaluation of the student, including students as young as 5, conducted by government psychologists, who assist the child with a plan in transitioning to a new gender” and that “this psychological evaluation of the student and transition plan takes place without any involvement of the student’s parents whatsoever.”
Moreover, AR 103(B) states the School District shall provide a Student Support Team a.k.a. Gender Transition Team to the student who will “discuss a timeline for the transition in order to create the conditions supporting a safe and accepting environment at the school”, while explaining the School District’s Gender Transition Teams “work to assist any student, including students in kindergarten, in his or her transition without any involvement of the student’s parents or guardians and without even notifying the parents at all.”
Additionally, AR 103(B) requires the School District, at the direction of the student, to: “A) Address the student by his or her preferred pronouns; B) Use the student’s preferred name, gender, and pronouns on school records or documents, such as school IDs, classroom rosters or the year-book; C) Permit the student to use whatever bathroom that the student chooses; and D) To participate on the sports team corresponding with the student’s chosen gender.”
“Doe sent written notice to the School District that, absent her prior written consent, the School District shall not refer her child to any mental health counselor or social worker for evaluation. Doe’s notice to the School District also demanded that the School District notify her within three days of learning about any matters related to gender identity or gender dysphoria expressed by her child. Doe met with the principal of her child’s school and the school’s guidance counselor, to discuss her written notice,” the suit said.
“At the meeting, School District representatives told Doe that, pursuant to AR 103(B), under no circumstances would the School District notify her if it becomes aware that her child has requested to be addressed by different pronouns, a different name or other exhibited behavior consistent with gender dysphoria or a desire to transition to a gender other than her biological gender. The School District’s representatives further stated to Doe that they would only notify her if ‘legally required to do so.’ Finally, the School District’s representatives stated to Doe that she had no parental rights under AR 103(B).”
The suit added after subsequently emailing the District regarding AR 103(B), the School District stated to the plaintiff that the School District was a “partner” with parents and, therefore, “would not comply with Doe’s demand to be notified if the School District becomes aware that her child has requested to be addressed by different pronouns, a different name, or other exhibited behavior consistent with gender dysphoria or a desire to transition to a gender other than her biological gender.”
“Doe has legitimate concerns regarding her child’s risk of transitioning. Doe found her child viewing online videos related to transitioning, videos of transgender individuals advocating transitioning and videos on sexuality. Doe’s child has recently begun hanging out with a new friend group, which includes children who identify as transgender or who are socially transitioning,” the suit stated.
“The years during and after COVID were very difficult for Doe’s child at school. It raised social and emotional challenges that affected and were difficult for Doe’s child to manage. Doe is concerned that if her child does begin exhibiting signs of gender confusion or gender dysphoria, the school will immediately begin affirming her before Doe knows and can take steps to help her child obtain appropriate medical care.”
UPDATE
In a March 22 motion to dismiss the complaint, counsel for the District contended that the suit “grossly mischaracterizes AR 103(B)”, that each of its arguments regarding same are erroneous, and that the suit had failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Here, the specter of a threat to Doe’s ability to ‘raise their child without undue state interference’ can certainly not be found to rise to the level of concrete, particularized and imminent harm. Plaintiff’s alleged harms fail to rise to the level of concrete or imminent for Article III Standing determination purposes. There is no allegation in plaintiff’s complaint that Doe’s child is a transgender individual or that they are in the process of transitioning or desire to do so; rather, the complaint contains merely circumstantial evidence derived from unfounded assumptions about a child’s internet search histories and a new social group of peers. There has been no concrete harm and there exists no imminent harm requiring dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s asserted injuries are based on the belief that one day AR 103(B) may interfere with the upbringing of their child. Reliance on speculative acts precludes a finding of standing. Subsequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter, and Count I must be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to identify a private right of action to pursue claims under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment to FERPA. Responding to students seeking or inquiring as to the nature of AR 103(B), puts the District in an entirely responsive role in allowing students to start the conversation about transitioning or gender identity.”
Rather, the District’s counsel said, AR 103(B) “sets guidelines for how these issues are to be handled whenever the students bring them to the District [and] it does not require that students undergo evaluations and submit to surveys without their parent’s or legal guardian’s consent.”
“Thus, the alleged harms in the complaint are (at best) conjecture, as a violation of Section 1232h only occurs if students are forced to submit to one of the promulgated surveys or analyses. The United States Supreme Court has held, in order to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint need only provide sufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to satisfy the elements necessary for the finding of a sufficient complaint, namely failing to plead factual allegations that plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Nowhere in AR 103(B) is the District required to subject a student to an evaluation or analysis, as AR 103(B) functions only after disclosure of transgender status to a District staff member,” the motion continued.
“To the contrary, it states that ‘Upon notification by a student, parent/guardian, or representative that a student is undertaking, planning to undergo, or has completed a gender transition, the school will promptly inform the notifying individual and the student of the right to request a student support team consisted of appropriate school staff.’ Count II fails to contain any well pleaded factual allegations that show AR 103(B) results in a violation of their Constitutional rights or 20 U.S.C. Section 1232h. As such, it fails to meet the sufficiency of complaint standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and must be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to allege that the District has engaged in any intrusiveness with their child. The District [does not] prevent, discourage, coerce or compel a student to avail themselves of AR 103(B), nor has it done so with plaintiff’s child.”
For counts of due process violation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and statutory rights violation under 12 U.S.C. Section 1232(h), the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Enjoining defendants and anyone acting through, with, or on behalf of them, from enforcing AR 103(B);
• Enjoining defendants and anyone acting through, with, or on behalf of them, from requiring her child to submit to any analysis, examination or evaluation Doe’s express written authorization;
• Declaring AR 103(B) void, invalid and unconstitutional;
• Awarding plaintiff monetary damages and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and
• Awarding plaintiff all appropriate and necessary relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Walter S. Zimolong III and James J. Fitzpatrick III of Zimolong, LLC, in Wayne.
The defendant is represented by Christina L. Lane and Krisha A. DiMascio of Maiello Brungo & Maiello, plus Jaime N. Doherty and Lisa M. Seifert of GRB Law, all in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00051
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com