Judge rules Pine-Richland parent can't challenge school district's transgender policy

A Pine-Richland parent suing the school district over its transgender nondiscrimination policy does not have standing to do so because her child has not been affected by it, a federal judge has ruled.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV issued his 17-page opinion in the case, which was filed in January by a plaintiff using the pseudonym Jane Doe.

Doe, who has a child in the North Hills district, said her child has not identified as transgender, but that she had recently found her child viewing videos online that included transgender people advocating for transitioning. Her child had also joined a new friend group that included transgender children.

Those facts, Stickman wrote in his opinion, are not enough to challenge the district’s policy.

“The unimpeached facts of record … are that the district has not applied its gender policy to Doe’s child,” the judge wrote. “Because Doe has not demonstrated that she has suffered any harm or that harm is imminent, the court finds that she does not have standing to challenge the district’s policy.”

In the original complaint, filed by the conservative group America First Legal, the plaintiff alleged that the district’s nondiscrimination policy allows school personnel to keep secrets from parents about a child’s health and welfare and that it violates her right to parent her own child.

The policy, the result of a settlement in a different lawsuit filed by three transgender students in the district in 2016, provides details as to how school officials will assist students through a gender transition and also provides rules for privacy and confidentiality.

In the newest lawsuit, the plaintiff said she believed that if her child did exhibit signs of gender confusion, the school would begin affirming that care before Doe could take steps on her own.

She sought an injunction to prohibit the district from enforcing the policy.

But to obtain one, Stickman wrote, the plaintiff was required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim.

The judge said she failed to do so.

“She has not alleged that her child identifies as transgender, that her child has approached the district with respect to gender or that the district has interacted with her child in any way with respect to gender,” Stickman wrote.

Doe did not present evidence of any current or imminent future injury, only that an injury “may” arise, the judge continued.

The judge said in his opinion that the issues presented by Doe are important and timely, and her concerns are legitimate.

But she failed to meet the standards required for an injunction.

“The mere fact that Doe’s child has friends who identify as transgender and that the child allegedly looked at internet sites discussing gender issues does not indicate that Doe’s child identifies as transgender,” Stickman wrote.

There is a pending motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the school district. The plaintiff’s response to that is due later this month.