Michelle Landerer individually and as Next Friend of her daughter O.G., and son, J.G., v. Dover Area School District, et al., 2025 WL 492002 (M.D. Pa. 2025).
A Pennsylvania federal district court held that a school district may have violated fundamental parental rights by not informing a parent of her child’s request to be considered transgender. In 2022, an eighth-grade biological female student told teachers that they wanted to be treated as a boy and use the name Caleb. Following the request, emotional support teachers regularly met with the student for the purpose of affirming their request and facilitating their transition. The student’s parent was not aware of this request, and school officials did not inform the parent of the request. In their suit, the parent alleged that the school district had a de facto policy that “prohibit[ed] parental notification when children request to socially transition to another gender identity unless the minor child consents.”
The court held that the parent successfully pled a violation of her substantive due process rights with regard to the fundamental right to direct the care, custody and control of her child under Section 1983. In particular, the court concluded that the school district’s failure to inform the parent of the child’s requests and its undisclosed decision to provide counseling to the student in relation to gender transitioning as alleged was a “reckless disregard” of the parent’s right as decision-maker for her child. The court also found that the parent could proceed with a claim regarding the right to direct medical care, pointing to allegations that staff engaged in counseling with the student “for the purpose of affirming [the student’s] requested gender identity,” while the student had separate mental health diagnoses.
Stephen Foote, et al v. Ludlow School Committee, et al, 128 F.4th 336 (1st Cir. 2025).
A similar fact pattern led to a different result in a case before the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. Parents of a middle school student sued the Ludlow School Committee and school officials, alleging that the district concealed their child’s gender identity from them and infringed upon their fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The First Circuit acknowledged the importance of parental rights in directing their child’s upbringing, education and health, but emphasized that these rights are not unlimited. The court asserted that public schools have discretion over curricular and administrative decisions and parents cannot use the Due Process Clause to dictate school policies. The court held that the district’s protocol of nondisclosure regarding a student’s gender expression without the student’s consent did not amount to a substantive due process violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the claim, holding that the parents failed to state a viable constitutional claim.
PRACTICAL ADVICE
These conflicting federal court decisions reflect the unsettled status of the law involving school districts’ responsibilities to students and their parents when presented with students’ social gender transitioning within the school setting. Optimally, such issues are able to be addressed collaboratively among school officials and parents. Where those circumstances are not present, however, school officials should consult with legal counsel to navigate the particular situation.
PHRC DISCRIMINATION REGULATIONS CHALLENGED
On a related note, several school districts, parents of students across the state, and two members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives recently filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate regulations promulgated by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) which defined sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. In an approach that mirrored arguments that succeeded before a Kentucky federal court to nullify similar regulations under Title IX as issued by the Biden Administration, the complaint asserts that the General Assembly is the sole authority of law and public policy and that the PHRC violated the nondelegation doctrine and the state constitution by attempting to expand the definition of the term “sex” for purposes of discrimination claims. The petitioners seek a declaration that PHRC regulations are void ab initio.
