PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has denied the submission of an amicus brief from an LGBTQ nonprofit group, in a lawsuit from a group of parents which alleged their civil rights were violated when Mount Lebanon School 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, 2022 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, 2022, 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 LGBTQ+ 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.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joy Flowers Conti granted a partial dismissal to the plaintiffs on Oct. 27, 2022, finding they had presented plausible claims and ruling their case could proceed.
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.'”
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 were dismissed without prejudice.
UPDATE
In response to a Feb. 12 motion by LGBTQ nonprofit group Lebo Pride to submit an amicus brief in the case, Conti denied that request in a memorandum opinion on March 7.
At the outset, Lebo Pride and the plaintiffs (who opposed the submission of the brief) agreed on the four-factor test that District Courts use to exercise their broad discretion on whether or not to permit an amici brief: (1) If the petitioner has a “special interest” in the particular case; (2) If the petitioner’s interest is not represented competently or at all in the case; (3) If the proffered information is timely and useful; and (4) If the petitioner is not partial to a particular outcome in the case.
“Lebo Pride asserts that it has a special interest in the case that is not currently represented by the parties. Namely, it seeks to supplement its legal argument with affidavits from students, parents and community members about the impact this decision will have on other (non-party) students and families in the district. Lebo Pride asserts that: (a) the Mount Lebanon School District has a compelling interest in protecting transgender students from harassment and discrimination; (b) implementing LGBTQ-inclusive curricula is a narrowly-tailored means to achieve that interest; and (c) an opt-out from that curricula would be inherently discriminatory,” Conti said.
“Plaintiffs oppose the filing of an amicus brief and oppose Lebo Pride’s effort to inject additional facts by way of affidavits. Plaintiffs point out that discovery closed eight months ago, contend that the new facts are not relevant to the issues raised in the summary judgment motions and would be prejudicial by causing the need for additional discovery and further delays. The summary judgment motions involve specific claims asserted by plaintiffs in this case against the remaining defendants. Plaintiffs argue that: (a) a mission-driven advocacy group like Lebo Pride does not have a special interest in those claims; (b) current counsel are competent to advise the court about the facts of record and applicable law; (c) the amicus brief is not timely, helpful or useful (for example, Lebo Pride erroneously refers to Mount Lebanon’s “LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum,” although it is undisputed that LGBTQ instruction is not in the first-grade curriculum); and (d) Lebo Pride is not impartial.”
After examining the arguments from all parties, Conti opted to deny Lebo Pride’s request to submit an amicus brief.
“With respect to the first factor, Lebo Pride does not have a ‘special interest’ in the plaintiffs’ specific claims. As this court stated previously, ‘this case is not about treating all students with kindness, tolerance and respect.’ Lebo Pride is a community organization whose interests appear to be largely at the policy level and involve non-parties. With respect to the second factor, defendants’ interests in defeating plaintiffs’ claims are similar to the interests of Lebo Pride. Defendants’ counsel are quite competent to advocate those interests. The curriculum and policy changes Lebo Pride wants to advocate in its amicus brief are not at issue in this case,” Conti stated.
“With respect to the third factor, the proffered information is not timely and useful to the court in analyzing the specific claims at issue. Lebo Pride’s belated attempt to inject new facts, about non-parties, more than eight months after the close of discovery is not timely filed because it would necessitate reopening discovery, with its attendant costs and delay, and the need for further summary judgment briefing. The proposed information is also not helpful because Lebo Pride misstates undisputed facts of record. Lebo Pride’s references to Mt. Lebanon’s ‘LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum’ are misleading. It is undisputed that the District’s curriculum does not refer to teaching the subject of gender identity to elementary students. Lebo Pride’s discussion of the alleged harms resulting from allowing parental notice and opt out practices is also confusing. ‘It is undisputed that the District has a practice of providing advance parental notice to parents of fifth and eighth grade students concerning instruction on human development and sexuality and to parents of eleventh grade students concerning instruction on HIV, sexuality, birth control/contraceptives, and sexually transmitted infections due to the sexually explicit character of such subjects and provides parents the opportunity to excuse or ‘opt-out’ their students from such instruction.’ In other words, the proposed amicus brief is not useful because it does not consider the actual factual record in this case.”
Finally, Conti explained Lebo Pride is partial to a particular outcome in this case, since it is “advocating for defendant Mount Lebanon School District to adopt a different curriculum and opt out policies, rather than analyzing the legal merits of the specific claims that are at issue in this case.”
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