Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
| Docket Number | 3:22-cv-337 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 2023 |
| Parties | DOE NO. 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BETHEL LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' AND INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC NOS. 75, 79); (2) DISMISSING COUNTS II AND IV FOR LACK OF STANDING; (3) DISMISSING COUNTS III, V, AND VI FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; (4) DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE REMAINING STATE-LAW CLAIMS; AND (5) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE, AND INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DOC. NOS. 5 48, 93)
This civil case, premised on federal question jurisdiction, is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on their state-law claim under the Ohio Open Meetings Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22, over which they allege that there is supplemental jurisdiction, and Defendants' and Intervenor-Defendant's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. Nos. 5, 75, 79. Defendants filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude certain evidence from being considered on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. No. 48. Upon full review of the record, the Court likewise ordered the parties to brief (1) whether a stay is warranted because there are parallel proceedings in state court; and (2) whether Plaintiffs have standing to litigate their federal claims. Doc. Nos. 52, 64. All parties filed briefs in response and reply to the motions and Orders (Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 70, 71), so this matter is ripe for review.
This case concerns the relationship between a school district, schoolchildren, their parents, and state and federal law. Plaintiffs are: (1) students who attend middle school in the Bethel Local School District in Tipp City, Ohio (listed as “Child No. 1A” through “Child 7F”); (2) parents of the students named as Plaintiffs (listed as “John Doe” and “Jane Doe”); and (3) other parents whose children are Bethel Middle School students but not named as Plaintiffs in this case. See Doc. No. 1 at PagelD 4-5. Defendants (collectively, “the School District”) are: (1) the Bethel Local School District Board of Education (“the Board”); (2) Lydda Mansfield, the Board's current president (“Mansfield”); (3) Lori Sebastian (“Sebastian”), the Board's current vice president; (4) Jacob King (“King”), the Board's past president and a sitting Board member; (5) Natalie Donahue (“Donahue”), a Board member; (6) Danny Elam (“Elam”), a Board member; and (7) Matthew Crispin (“Crispin”), Bethel Local School District's current superintendent. Id. at PageID 5-6. Intervenor-Defendant Anne Roe (“Anne”) is the transgender student whose bathroom occupancy is at the heart of this case. She intervened on January 20, 2023. See Doc. No. 30.
Anne transferred to Bethel Middle School in January of 2020. See Doc. No. 13-1 at PageID 123. After her parents informed Tim Zeigler, then Bethel Middle School's principal-that Anne was transgender-Anne, her parents, and Zeigler agreed that she “would use the single occupancy bathroom in the Nurse's office, or the Faculty Restroom located between the middle school office and the high school office.”[1]Doc. No. 13-2 at PageID 134. In the present case, Anne swore in an affidavit that using the single occupancy bathroom was difficult because it was frequently occupied whenever she needed to use it, and she felt ostracized, humiliated, and targeted by other students who taunted her for using the separate bathroom. Doc. No. 13-1 at PagelD 125-26. This caused her to hold her urine during the day “to avoid using the restroom at school[,]” which she claims “began negatively affecting [her] school performance.” Id. at PageID 126.
On August 23, 2021, Anne's father spoke with Matt Triplett, who had taken over as Bethel Middle School's principal. Doc. No. 13-2 at PageID 135. He asked “if the school would grant [Anne] an accommodation to use the girls' communal restroom in addition to the two single-use restrooms she was already allowed to use.” Id. Triplett promised to discuss the issue with other school officials. Id. Then, on December 5, 2021, Anne's mother emailed Triplett about the issue. Doc. No. 54-1. She expressed her concern about waiting for the officials to come to a decision and advised that her daughter was being treated unfairly because she did not have access to the girls' communal bathroom. Id. at PageID 1166. Importantly, she noted, “I've recently been made aware that I can file a complaint with the . . . U.S. Department of Justice if I feel that [Anne] is being discriminated against and treated unfairly because she is transgender.” Id.
Two weeks later, on December 17, Anne, her parents, Triplett, and Justin Firks-Bethel Local School District's Superintendent-met. Id. At that meeting, Triplett and Firks told Anne that she “would be allowed to use the girls' communal restroom once she returned from Winter Break in January of 2022.” Id. As Firks would swear later in an affidavit filed in the present case, he “appl[ied] the Board's . . . Anti-Harassment [Policy] . . . and grant[ed] Anne['s] . . . request for [an] accommodation” to use the girls' communal restroom. Doc. No. 48-1 at PageID 1053.
The Board, pursuant to its bylaws, holds regular public meetings at least every two months. Doc. No. 16-1 at PageID 187. At these meetings, the Board's members discuss “routine business items[,]” such as “hiring of personnel” or adopting a resolution that sets the Board's new policy- so long as it occurs in public. Id. However, the Board may also “enter into executive session” to discuss certain matters “that are exempted from public sessions[.]” Id. at PageID 190. These topics concern: (1) acting with respect to a public employee or official's employment; (2) investigating charges or complaints against an employee; (3) considering school property sales; (4) discussing imminent court action with the Board's legal counsel; (5) preparing for or conducting collective bargaining; (6) reviewing information that federal or state law requires to be confidential; (7) addressing security matters or emergency response protocols; and (8) addressing confidential information about the School District's economic development. Id. “No official action may be taken in executive session[,]” and “[a]n executive session will be held only at a regular or special meeting.” Id. Likewise, “no member of the Board, committee[,] or subcommittee shall disclose the content of discussions that take place during such sessions.” Id.
The Board also follows the School District's anti-discrimination policy. Doc. No. 16-2. Under that policy, the School District “will employ all reasonable efforts to protect the rights of” individuals subject to what the School District determines to be discriminatory conduct. Id. at PageID 211. Likewise, the School District retains all documents and information “pertaining to” discriminatory conduct and treatment, including requests by an individual that is experiencing discrimination. Id. at PagelD 211-12. The policy further notes that this information may be exempted from disclosure under federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). Id. at PageID 212.
On September 13, 2021, the Board held a public meeting. See Board Education, Bethel Schools's Personal Meeting Room, YouTube (Sept. 13, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxrRDefG0.[2]At that meeting, the Board opened the floor to members of the public to raise their concerns. Id. at 1:20:00. One person brought up “transgender rights” as a topic for the Board to consider, alleging that transgender students attended school in the district. Id. at 1:20:10-:29, 1:21:45-:52. According to this person, these students should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, and not allowing this violated federal law. Id. at 1:20:29-1:24:55. King responded that the Board “was still conferring with [its] legal counsel in regards” to those issues. Id. at 1:24:56-1:25:10. He acknowledged that allowing students to use the bathroom corresponding to gender identity would be a change from the norm throughout the Bethel School District. Id. at 1:25:11-:47.
The Board held another meeting on December 7, 2021, and, at the end of that meeting, King moved to enter executive session. See Board Education, Board Work Session at 52:35-54:22, YouTube (Dec. 7, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGFWcZRhEhI. The Board members reference moving into executive session to discuss legal advice given to them by their attorney. See id. at 52:35-:50. King announced in public that, based on their prior discussions, executive session would fall under the Open Meetings Act's exceptions for discussions: (1) with the board's attorney to discuss matters subject to pending or imminent court action; (2) about security arrangements; and (3) concerning employment matters or complaints against a student or employee. Id. at 53:20-54:00.
What happened during that executive session is genuinely disputed. The School District submitted an affidavit from Superintendent Firks, claiming that the Board discussed matters under Ohio Revised Code §§ 121.22(G)(1) and (3); namely, an investigation about an employment into a school district employee and attorney-client matter between the Board and its counsel. Doc. No....
To continue reading
Request your trial