Judge: Mt. Lebanon School District violated parents’ rights in transgender identity lesson for first graders
Share this post:
Mt. Lebanon School District violated the constitutional rights of parents, a federal judge said, when it allowed a first-grade teacher to give a lesson on transgender identity to her students without first providing parents notice and the ability to opt out.
Senior U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti ruled in favor of three mothers in the district who sued two years ago, alleging multiple violations of their rights to parent their children.
“It is obvious that a teacher reading books to teach first-grade students that their parents may be wrong about whether they are a boy or a girl would violate fundamental parental rights,” the judge wrote in her 94-page opinion.
The judge awarded the plaintiffs nominal damages of $15. She said that moving forward, the district must provide notice to parents and an ability to opt out their children on lessons involving transgender topics.
Attorney David Berardinelli, who represented the plaintiffs, said he hopes the district will now act according to the court’s opinion.
“We are pleased that Judge Conti did a detailed examination of the facts and the law and confirmed what we have said from the start — all parental rights and beliefs matter and should be respected in public education, and certain rights and beliefs cannot and should not be disregarded or ignored in favor of others,” he said.
Messages left with the school district and its attorney on Friday were not immediately returned.
According to the lawsuit, teacher Megan Williams, who taught first grade at Jefferson Elementary School, marked Transgender Awareness Day on March 31, 2022, by reading two books, “When Aiden Became a Brother,” and “Introducing Teddy.”
The plaintiffs, Carmilla Tatel, Stacy Dunn and Gretchen Melton, alleged in their complaint that the book and Williams’ comments afterward caused confusion among the students.
According to testimony in the case, Williams told her first-grade class that “when children are born, parents make a guess whether they’re a boy or a girl. Sometimes parents are wrong.”
Following the afternoon discussion, one child, who was upset, raised his hand and said: “’But I’m a boy. I don’t want to be a girl,’” according to the court’s opinion.
“Williams responded, ‘Yes you are. Talk with your parents about that.’”
Tatel said that later that day she was forced to talk to her child about gender identity when she was not ready to do so.
According to the court’s opinion, six parents complained about the lesson to the school principal.
The principal, Brett Bielewicz, and now-retired Superintendent Timothy Steinhauer, said repeatedly that they supported Williams’ decision to give the lesson and read the books, the judge said.
In court filings, the school district argued that, while Williams’ conduct may have been “unwise and offensive” it did not violate the parents’ constitutional rights.
But Conti disagreed, finding it was a violation of their rights to due process, equal protection and free exercise of religion.
“Who decides how to determine a young child’s gender identity goes to the heart of parental decision-making authority on a matter of greatest importance,” she wrote. “Concerns about undercutting parental authority are heightened when the children are in first grade and the person trying to influence them is their teacher.”
The topic of transgender identity, the judge said, was not included in the district’s curriculum, and parents were never made aware that it could be taught — especially at such a young age.
“Parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children,” Conti wrote.
The judge said that Williams’ belief that she was in the right, and that she was free to instruct her “young, captive students” “showed intolerance and disrespect for the religious or moral beliefs and authority of the parents.”
The court went on to note that the plaintiffs were not seeking to ban the topic from being taught in the district entirely.
“The parents only seek relief related to their children and recognize other parents may choose not to opt their children out of instruction about sensitive topics, like transgender issues. In other words, the parents seek only to have effective prior notice and the ability to opt their own young children out of that kind of instruction.”
Conti noted in her opinion that district policy allows parents to opt out of other instructional topics based on a conflict with their religious beliefs, including lessons about human development and sexuality, as well as HIV, birth control and sexually transmitted infections.
“There are many controversial topics in society. In elementary school, it is constitutionally impermissible for a school to provide teachers with the unbridled discretion to determine to teach about a noncurriculur topic — transgender identity — and not to provide notice and opt out rights based on parents’ moral and religious beliefs about transgender instruction, while providing notice and opt out rights for other sensitive secular and religious topics.”
According to the court record, the plaintiffs waived their right to seek money damages and were only seeking a ruling on the issues in the case.
“They feel justified in the result,” he said. “They’re not really out to hurt someone. They’re out to protect their own parental interests.”