Federal Court Finds Mt. Lebanon School District Violates Parents’ Rights

Written by John A. Sparks

Carmilla Tatel’s daughter attended teacher Megan Williams’ first grade class at Jefferson Elementary School, one of the schools in the Mt. Lebanon School District near Pittsburgh, PA. When her daughter came home from school on March 21, 2022, the little girl posed a question to her mother that both puzzled and alarmed Tatel. Her daughter asked “how do you know that I am a girl?”

She and two other parents, Gretchen Melton and Stacy Dunn, who also had children in Williams’ class, began to piece together what had occurred in the classroom that day. They eventually found out that March 21 was “Transgender Awareness Day.” Williams had used class time to show videos and read story books intended to convey one of the central tenets of the transgender perspective: When children are born “parents make a guess whether they’re a boy or a girl. Sometimes parents are wrong.”

One of the books read aloud that day was titled, Aidan Becomes a Big Brother. The main character, Aidan, is born and raised a girl, but later desires to be a boy. The parents acquiesce and, in fact, tell Aidan: “When you were born, we didn’t know you were going to be our son. We made mistakes but you helped us to fix them.” To make her point even clearer, Williams told the class that her own son (who attended another elementary school in the district), and who some knew from playing sports with him, was now a “she.”  Further, said Williams, if she brought him to “Bring-a-child-to-work day,” he would be wearing a dress.

The full details of the classroom presentations on March 21—morning and afternoon— became the subject of a federal lawsuit by parents against the Mt. Lebanon School District. The facts of the case—those already mentioned and those set out below—are from the careful and thorough (94-page) opinion of the presiding senior United States District Judge, the Honorable Joy Flowers Conti, September 30, 2024.

The facts convey the bewilderment created in the trusting minds of these five- and six-year-olds about their own identity as boys and girls. The testimony came largely from two sets of classroom aides who were in Williams’ classroom during the morning and afternoon. The aides reported that the morning book reading (Aidan) “caused confusion among the students.”

One student commented: “I don’t get it.”

Another called out, “Oh, I get it—she was a he.”

Williams apparently confirmed this last comment saying that “yes, she was a he.”

During the afternoon session, one boy, described by an aide as “upset,” raised his hand, and said, “But I’m a boy. I don’t want to be a girl.” Williams responded that yes he was a boy and to take it up with his parents. The following day, two of the children innocently offered a solution to Williams about determining the sex of a child. They proposed, “when you change a baby’s diaper … you know if they’re are a boy or girl.” One can only say that their common sense grasp of reality stands in contrast to the illusory world their teacher was proposing.

Other relevant facts given prominence in Judge Conti’s opinion were the religious views of two of the parent-mothers, Tatel (Roman Catholic) and Melton (Latter Day Saints). Their respective faiths about the origin and nature of human sexuality were in direct conflict with the gender-identity instruction provided in the first-grade class taught by Williams. Dunn had similar views based on her moral convictions. It was these deeply held religious and moral beliefs that motivated the responses of the parent.

The mothers’ position on human sexuality was straightforward, captured by Tatel’s testimony: “I believe that God gives you the sex. God creates you male or female … parents don’t choose their kids’ sex … kids don’t choose their sex.” Instead of treating those beliefs as worthy of respect, the school district chose to challenge them by implying that there were other non-religious reasons for the mothers’ opposition to Williams’ classroom instruction. In Melton’s case, the school posed her position as standing in opposition to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). In Tatel’s case, the school offered her statement that Williams was, “pushing her left-wing agenda all year.” Judge Conti rightly found the mothers’ religious convictions were indeed well-founded and sincerely held despite the district’s efforts to discredit them.

Another issue, certainly important to these parents and to other parents, was the question of how the district made parents aware of the instructional content which was being provided to students. Judge Conti found that for the school year in question, “neither the curriculum sections of the district’s website nor the information available to parents in Atlas [an electronic site] refers to teaching the subject of gender identity … transgender identity, to elementary students including first graders.” These are sources parents could access to learn what was being taught and in this case, they would find no “gender identity” content mentioned.

The Mt. Lebanon district did give parents notice and the ability to opt-out of fifth, seventh, and eighth grade instruction on “ human development and sexuality” on “HIV, birth control/contraceptives, and sexually transmitted infections.” However, the court found that the, “District never sent a letter directly to elementary school parents advising them in advance of particular planned instruction on the subject of gender identity/transgender issues and providing the ability to opt their children out of that instruction.” Moreover, Williams, who had the prerogative under district policy to notify parents about the gender identity content she was presenting, did not do so. These failures of notice are precisely why the parents were caught unaware.

Judge Conti also explained that parents involved in the lawsuit and other parents met with administrators about the events of March 21. The administrators supported the teacher’s conduct and were unwilling to endorse a written policy of notice for gender-identity instruction. Once the lawsuit was filed, they did informally instruct teachers not to give instruction of this sort pending the conclusion of the litigation. Judge Conti’s opinion indicates that the superintendent of the district, Dr. Steinhauer, did eventually instruct principals and teachers to give notice to parents and an opt-out choice on “instruction involving controversial subjects.” However, “no written procedure was created instructing that, if topics of gender identity are to be taught, parents should be given advance notice and the ability to opt their children out of that instruction.” It is hard to understand why the Mt. Lebanon district took such an unyielding and recalcitrant stance against the entirely reasonable request of parents to be given notice of such teaching so that they could supervise what their children were being taught.

The parents sued under a section of the federal civil rights law often referred to as “a 1983 action,” named after the particular section of the law empowering such suits. Section 1983 gives individuals the right to sue state government employees (in this case public school employees) who are acting “under color of state law” and who violate the constitutional rights of the individuals suing. In this case, the parents only sought nominal monetary damages, but, most importantly, asked the court for  “declaratory relief” in the form of a court order protecting them and other parents in the district from further unconstitutional conduct by the school district.

Judge Conti first addressed the parents’ claim that their substantive right to “control the upbringing of their children” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been denied them. She agreed with the parents’ claim. Quoting the oldest decision protecting parental rights, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), she said:

The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

Later, quoting the case of Gruenke v. Seip, a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case, Judge Conti stated:

[P]ublic schools must not forget that “in loco parentis” does not mean “displace parents.” It is not educators but parents who have the primary rights in upbringing children. School officials have only a secondary responsibility and must respect these rights.

The court went on to say that there was no doubt that the action of Williams improperly interfered and conflicted with the substantive views of the parents. The Williams’ presentation conflicted with the parents’ beliefs that (1) persons are created either male or female; (2) that one’s sex is not a matter of choice by parents or children; (3) it is the parents’ choice as to when the subject of gender identity is introduced and that first grade is too early; and (4) the legitimacy of parents as the proper authority on these subjects. In all these areas, the conduct of Williams and the district’s support for her subverted parental rights.

The court explains that parental rights have long been recognized as “fundamental.” In legal parlance, “fundamental” means that the court must use a judicial standard called “strict scrutiny.” Basically, the parents will prevail unless the school district can show that its conduct and those of its employees was done for a “compelling” reason that clearly overrides the parents’ right to raise and nurture their children. Judge Conti makes it quite clear that “There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate a compelling interest for Williams to introduce transgender topics to first graders” or to “tell the young students that their parents may be wrong about their identity.” The district gave no reason for “the instruction not being disclosed in the curriculum.” Further, Judge Conti stated that Williams “showed an intolerance and disrespect for the religious and moral beliefs and authority of the parents,” and without anything close to a compelling reason for doing so.

Moreover, because the school administrators—namely, the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and principal— knew about and allowed the conduct of Williams, over whom they had “supervisory liability” and the district has “municipal liability,” judgments were also entered against them on the parental rights’ count.

On yet another count, Procedural Due Process, the results were the same. Judge Conti entered judgments against the district, the administrators, and the teacher because of the failure to provide ordinary procedural and due-process steps—specifically, notice, opt-out opportunities, and control of teacher prerogatives—to protect the rights of the parents. These procedures would have imposed no significant burden on the district, its administrators, or the teacher in question. The result was an absence of procedural fairness.

Judge Conti also found that the rights of two of the parents (Tatel and Melton) were infringed upon under the free exercise of religion provision of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The teacher and the district “deliberately supplanted the parents’ role to control the instruction of their young children about gender identity in accordance with the parents’ religious values.” The third parent’s objection to the gender instruction (Dunn) was not based upon religious convictions and, therefore, the court could not extend the protections of the First Amendment to her.

Under another count in the complaint, the district was found to have denied equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the plaintiffs. The district refused to provide notice and opt-outs for the complainants who were asserting religious and parental rights objections to the transgender instruction “while providing notice and opt-outs for other secular and religious topics” to similarly situated parents in the district.

In short, the Mt. Lebanon School District, one of its teachers, and three administrators intentionally violated a long list of substantive constitutional rights of some of its parents.

Assessing the future, Judge Conti states that, “There is a reasonble expectation that violations may recur.” Therefore, she has imposed a declaratory relief order to protect parents’ rights going forward. It states that plaintiff parents are entitled to “reasonable and realistic advance notice and the ability to opt their elementary-age children out of non-curricular instruction on transgender topics” and the requirements for opting out can’t be “more stringent than those for other sensitive topics.”

Judge Conti has done a remarkable job of evaluating the facts and applying the law. However, the law can only go so far. Think what this means for parents in the Mt. Lebanon School District in the future. They must be on constant alert to review the district curriculum website to be knowledgeable of gender-identity content offered at a particular grade level. In addition, they must be exceedingly attentive to what a single instructor is teaching on her own outside of the posted curriculum. If parents detect errant instruction, they must apply to the district for the right to opt out for their children. If the district refuses them, as it did with the Williams’ case, their only resort is to sue the district once again, alleging that the declaratory order was breached.

It is important to remember that an opinion granting relief only came two years and six months after the initial classroom incident and involved hours of testimony, investigation, stress, and notoriety that always accompanies legal action. It is little wonder that parents facing such a choice may choose home education, a private religious school, a charter school, or (if possible) another public school that has avoided such controversial instruction.

This article was originally published by The Institute for Faith & Freedom.