Tatel v. MT. Leb. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 27 October 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-837
• Parties: CARMILLA TATEL, STACY DUNN and GRETCHEN MELTON, individually and as parents and natural guardians of their children, Plaintiffs, v. MT. LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE MT. LEBANON SCHOOL BOARD, MEGAN WILLIAMS, DR. TIMOTHY STEINHAUER, DR. MARYBETH D. IRVIN, BRETT BIELEWICZ, 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, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

CARMILLA TATEL, STACY DUNN and GRETCHEN MELTON, individually and as parents and natural guardians of their children, Plaintiffs, v. MT. LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE MT. LEBANON SCHOOL BOARD, MEGAN WILLIAMS, DR. TIMOTHY STEINHAUER, DR. MARYBETH D. IRVIN, BRETT BIELEWICZ, 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, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-837

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

October 27, 2022

OPINION

Joy Flowers Conti Senior United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

This case involves the extent of parents' constitutional rights to control when and how information about transgender topics is presented by a public school to their first-grade children. The parents allege that their children's first-grade teacher, with the permission of the public school district, pursued her own agenda outside the curriculum which included showing videos or reading books about transgender topics and telling the first-grade students in her class (ages six and seven years old) to keep her discussions with them about transgender topics secret from their parents. 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 (the “de facto policy”) that the teacher's conduct could continue in the future without notice to the parents or the opportunity to opt out.

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. As will be discussed below, 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.” Gruenke v. Seip, 225 F.3d 290, 305 (3d Cir. 2000).

The Parents assert they do not seek to impose their religious or moral beliefs about transgender topics on other students. Instead, the parents seek to protect their own young children from a public school teacher's showing videos and reading books about transgender topics and her attempts to promote or inculcate in the young children in her class the teacher's ideas or beliefs about a child's gender identity and to initiate and engage in discussions with the first-graders in her class about the children's own gender identity without the permission of their parents. No party in this case raised any issue about the existence in the school district of bullying or intolerance toward transgender children. Based upon the allegations of the complaint, the court need not resolve at the pleading stage whether there is a difference, for constitutional purposes, between teaching children about kindness toward other children and seeking to influence a young child's beliefs about the child's own gender identity or to advance a teacher's own beliefs about the inappropriateness of a parent's religious beliefs concerning gender identity.

Pending before this court are motions to dismiss the complaint filed on behalf of defendant Mt. Lebanon School District (the “District”) (ECF No. 14) and the individual defendants (ECF No. 16), with briefs in support (ECF Nos. 15, 17). The individual defendants also filed a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint (ECF No. 16). Plaintiffs Carmilla Tatel, Stacy Dunn and Gretchen Melton (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or the “Parents”) filed an omnibus response in opposition to the motions (ECF No. 28) and the motions are ripe for disposition.

II. Factual^[1] and Procedural Background

Each Parent had a first-grade child enrolled at the Jefferson Elementary School in the District during the 2021-2022 school year.^[2] Defendant Megan Williams (“Williams”) was their children's first-grade teacher. Williams is certified to teach kindergarten through fifth grade and has taught several different grade levels in the past. Complaint ¶ 52.

The District is a public school district organized under Pennsylvania law and governed by a nine-member, elected board of school directors (the “Board”). Defendant Jacob Wyland (“Wyland”) is the president of the Board. Defendants Valerie Fleisher (“Fleisher”), Todd Ellwein (“Ellwein”), Andrew Freeman (“Freeman”), Erin Gentzel (“Gentzel”), Claire Guth (“Guth”), Dr. Justin Hackett (“Hackett”), Anamaria Johnson (“Johnson”) and Sarah Olbrich (“Olbrich”) are members of the Board. Defendant Dr. Timothy Steinhauer (“Steinhauer”) is the superintendent of the District. Defendant Dr. Marybeth D. Irvin (“Irvin”) is the assistant superintendent of the District and is in charge of elementary education. Defendant Brett Bielewicz (“Bielewicz”) is the principal at Jefferson Elementary School. Each individually-named defendant is sued in both the defendant's individual and official capacities.

In the complaint, the Parents assert § 1983 claims and seek declaratory judgment on those claims and on a pendant state law claim, as follows:

Count 1: Substantive Due Process (14^th Amendment)-fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children;

Count 2: Procedural Due Process (14^th Amendment) -fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children;

Count 3: right to familial privacy (14^th Amendment);

Count 4: Free Exercise of Religion (1^st Amendment) and Equal Protection (14^thAmendment);

Count 5: children's right to privacy (14^th Amendment); and

Count 6: declaratory judgment with respect to the § 1983 claims and that defendants violated 22 Pa. Code § 4.4(d).

Counts 1 through 5 are asserted against all named defendants. Count 6 is asserted only against the District.

District Policy I(J) provides that the responsibility to select instructional materials rests with the superintendent, subject to final approval by the Board. Complaint ¶ 36. Instructional materials shall be appropriate to the age and emotional development of the students. Id.

The Parents allege that the District had a policy and practice of providing parental notification and “opt out” rights when sensitive, complex or controversial topics (such as the Holocaust, slavery, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, reproductive education, sex education, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood) were to be taught in a given class. Id. ¶ 3. District Policy I(F) is entitled “Curriculum and Parental Rights” and provides for parental review of instructional materials and opt out rights related to instruction that conflicts with their First Amendment beliefs. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. The Parents allege that defendants failed to recognize their fundamental rights as parents or adhere to the District's notice and opt out policies in Williams' classroom. Id. ¶ 5.

Williams is the mother of a transgender child who, like the Plaintiffs' children, was in the first grade during the 2021-2022 school year. Id. ¶ 54. Williams told parents she “has an agenda” and intends to teach “right on the edge.” Id. ¶ 9. Williams told one Plaintiff “as long as I am on this earth, I am going to teach children what I feel they need to learn.” Id. ¶ 56 (emphasis in original).^[3] For example, students in Williams' classroom, against the instruction of the District, were not given the opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance for 52 straight days at the start of the school year. Id. ¶¶ 57-61. As another example, a Plaintiff's child informed Williams that she was not allowed to watch a certain cartoon (based on a parental choice that some of the content was not age-appropriate). Id. ¶¶ 68-69. Williams forged ahead, telling the child “I will tell your mom that I told you it was ok to watch it.” Id. ¶ 70. Williams emailed the parent, informing her that she showed the cartoon to the student even though the child told her she was not allowed to watch it at home. Id. ¶ 72.

The published Grade 1 curriculum does not mention or discuss teaching about gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning. Id. ¶ 41. Teaching about diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) is not included in the first-grade curriculum. Id. ¶ 44. No notice or information was provided to parents indicating that gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning would be taught to first graders. Id. ¶ 47. In October 2021, a group of concerned parents met with Bielewicz, who assured them there were no formal lessons about gender identity, especially in first grade. Id. ¶ 88.

The Parents allege that defendants permitted Williams to teach and condoned her teaching about gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning to her first-grade students. Id. ¶ 6. The Parents allege that this instruction was: (1) contrary to the District's published...