PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has granted a trio of parents the right to further pursue their lawsuit against the Mount Lebanon School District that alleged their civil rights were violated when the district provided classroom instruction to their first-grade children on the topics of gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning.
Carmilla Tatel, Stacy Dunn and Gretchen Melton first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 8 versus the Mount Lebanon School District, Mount Lebanon School Board, first-grade teacher Megan Williams, Superintendent Dr. Timothy Steinhauer, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Marybeth D. Irvin, Principal Brett Bielewicz and Mount Lebanon School Board members Jacob W. Wyland, Valerie M. Fleisher, Todd W. Ellwein, Andrew D. Freeman, Erin C. Gentzel, Claire B. Guth, Dr. Justin D. Hackett, Anamaria A. Johnson and Sarah L. Olbrich.
The suit claimed that Williams, a first-grade teacher at Jefferson Elementary School, a part of the Mount Lebanon School District in Pittsburgh, violated the parents’ rights when she inserted her personal beliefs around gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning into her first-grade classroom.
Williams allegedly played a video called “Jacob’s New Dress” for her six- and seven-year-old students, read from books whose subject matter included gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning, explained that her child had worn an “Elsa dress” for Halloween and “explained to her students that sometimes ‘parents are wrong’ and parents and doctors ‘make mistakes’ when they bring a child home from the hospital.”
The suit went on to say that the child of one of the plaintiffs explained to his mother that Williams had told him, “I can wear a dress and have hair like my mom," chose to speak with one of the plaintiff’s children about gender dysphoria repeatedly and supposedly told him not to tell his parents about their conversations.
“Defendant Williams is the mother of a transgender child who, like her students, is in the first grade. While that may give her unique perspectives and views on gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning, it does not give her the right to impose those views on a captive audience of six- and seven-year-old children. This is particularly true given that the scope of the Grade 1 Curriculum which is published to parents includes no such instruction, let alone such instruction that is not given by a professional counselor,” the suit said.
“Williams’ unrequested and unconsented to teaching of these topics is in large manner no different than, and as equally improper as, an unsolicited approach by a neighbor that raises these topics with a young child. On another level, however, it is far worse – because her role as a teacher gives her a unique ability to influence the young children in her class. She used plaintiffs’ children as part of an unconsented to social/thought experiment to fulfill her own personal agenda.”
The suit added that Williams stood by her actions in the classroom, actions that were supported by her co-defendants in the Mount Lebanon School District, and continued to do so in a phone call to one of the plaintiffs.
“Weeks after this plaintiff had removed her child from Williams’ class, she received a call from a private number (not a District number). Although she did not recognize the number, she answered the call. Remarkably and shockingly, it was Williams calling this parent. This student was no longer in Williams’ class. She had no professional (or other) basis for calling plaintiff. Obviously emboldened by the support from the Administration and School Board defendants, Williams first sarcastically said to plaintiff that she ‘wanted to applaud her,” the suit stated.
“Williams then voiced to plaintiff that she did not understand why her instruction [on gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning] was a problem. Plaintiff not so politely told her of her strong parental viewpoint to the contrary. Williams then said to plaintiff, ‘As long as I am on this Earth, I am going to teach children what I feel they need to know’ and hung up. Under no circumstances was this call appropriate for Williams to make.”
A spokesperson for Mount Lebanon School District remarked that the lawsuit “contains various allegations that are untrue or based on partial truths that mischaracterize events for sensational effect” and “looks forward to the opportunity to set the record straight.”
The District filed a motion to dismiss the case on July 27, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Plaintiffs assert that these classroom readings violated their Constitutional rights, premised upon an alleged interference with the parental right to control the upbringing and education of their children. Plaintiffs’ claims fail because federal courts have unanimously held that exposure to certain concepts or ideas at school without notice does not violate any Constitutional rights,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiffs have not cited and defendants have not located one case that supports any of their claims for relief. To the contrary, every federal court addressing these issues, including those related to LBTQ+ instruction in elementary schools, has held that parents have no Constitutional right to exempt their child from certain subjects, reading assignments, community service requirements or assembly programs they find objectionable.”
According to the District, the proper remedy is “not to request this Court to create new law or to become a super school board to oversee or govern the curriculum and instruction of the District and other school districts within its jurisdiction.”
“Instead, as noted by the Third Circuit, if their children are exposed to ‘sensitive’ information at school, plaintiffs are ‘free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family’s moral or religious context, or to supplement the information with more appropriate materials,” per the motion.
The District adds that Third Circuit precedent in C.N. v. Ridgewood Board of Education states that “the parental right to control the upbringing of a child must give way to a school’s ability to control curriculum and the school environment,” and that, accordingly, the plaintiffs have “no cognizable claim.”
The District also argued that it could not be proven it was liable for Williams’ actions.
“To establish Section 1983 liability against the District, a plaintiff must show that the enforcement of a District policy was ‘the moving force’ of the violation of plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. Plaintiffs cannot make such a showing. As a matter of law, the Superintendent and Board of Directors have final, policy-making authority with respect to the curriculum,” the District’s dismissal motion said.
“It is not sufficient to simply show that some other public officials generally agreed with an actor’s conduct or expressed support for a state actor. Instead, it must be alleged that the final policy maker knew that the subordinate was violating someone’s rights, but failed to stop it. The complaint does not make such allegations. Indeed, to the contrary, the complaint contends that Williams’ use of the instructional materials violated established District policy. Consequently, all claims against the District should be dismissed with prejudice.”
While the plaintiffs had previously asked for an injunction to prevent the teaching of transgender-related subject matter as the case is ongoing, the defendants stipulated that the District would do so and thus sidestepped the need for an injunction.
UPDATE
Several weeks ahead of scheduled mediation in the case set for late November, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joy Flowers Conti granted a partial dismissal to the plaintiffs on Oct. 27, finding they had presented plausible claims and ruling their case could proceed.
“The teacher’s alleged conduct went far beyond instructing a student that someone who differs from that student must be treated with kindness, tolerance and respect. As pled in the complaint, the teacher, among other things, instructed the children in her first-grade class that their parents might be wrong about their children’s gender and told one of her students that she (the teacher) would never lie (implying that the parents may lie about their child’s identity) and the child could dress like a different gender and be like the teacher’s transgender child. When the parents complained, the school district supported the teacher and allegedly adopted a policy that the teacher’s conduct could continue in the future without notice to the parents or the opportunity to opt out,” Conti said.
“The parents assert constitutional claims against the public school district, the teacher, the administrators and the school board members arising from the exposure of their first-grade children to transgender topics over their objections. The defendants argue that the parents have no constitutional claims because parents do not have any right to control how or what a public school chooses to teach their children. The defendants’ position does not comport with Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that the fundamental right of parents to raise and nurture their children may sometimes conflict with a public school’s policies, but explained: ‘When such collisions occur, the primacy of the parents’ authority must be recognized and should yield only where the school’s action is tied to a compelling interest.”
Citing precedent from the Third Circuit in Gruenke v. Seip, in which a high school swimming coach involved himself in the possible pregnancy of a student swimmer without informing their parents, Conti explained that “public schools must not forget that ‘in loco parentis’ does not mean ‘displace parents.'”
Other federal appellate courts, such as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fields v. Palmdale School District, which addressed sex education in compulsory health classes, found that “parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.”
Conti’s ruling retained the plaintiffs’ claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but dismissed other claims that alleged Williams violated her students’ privacy rights, official capacity claims against the individual defendants and claims against the Mount Lebanon School Board will be dismissed with prejudice.
Meanwhile, claims against defendants Fleisher, Ellwein, Freeman, Gentzel, Guth, Hackett, Johnson and Olbrich in their individual capacities will be dismissed without prejudice.
The plaintiffs are represented by David J. Berardinelli of DeForest Koscelnik & Berardinelli, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Christopher L. Voltz and Matthew M. Hoffman of Tucker Arensberg, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00837
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com