By Erin Friday, Esq.
Despite the liberal judges in California, the school cases have been favorable towards parental rights and teachers who do not wish to be a part of socially transitioning of students behind the parents’ backs. The courtroom is, ultimately, where it will be decided if parents are still able to control that care, custody and upbringing of their children. Because of the court successes, the LGBTQ caucus of California legislature just announced a bill that will try to circumvent these cases. Here is the fact sheet on the bill. Before I get to that bill in the next day, please enjoy the good news …..
1. Jessica Konen v. Lori Caldeira, Kelly Baraki, Kately Pagaran (principal) Spreckels Union School District – State Court, Monterey County (filed on 6/15/22.)
In this case, a female child (11-years-old) was influenced at her school to believe that she was a transgender boy. She was instructed by the two defendant teachers to keep it secret. Both teachers were caught on audio at a California Teachers Association convention admitting that they “stalked” kids’ I-pad searches to find potential members for the transgender UBU secret club held at the school. The young girl’s identity changed back once she was removed from the indoctrinating and deceptive school, lending anecdotal credence to renowned pediatrician, Hilary Cass’ statement that social transition is a psycho-social treatment that can concretize a gender identity. (The Cass Review was recently published and is the largest systematic review of the evidence.)
Konen was represented pro bono in her suit by a national firm based in California. Konen settled for $100,000, but the actual cost of the case was just under $400,000 with its attorney’s fees, severance pay-outs to the two defendant teachers, plus their paid leave. In total four employees lost their jobs - the principal, Travis Baraki (IT specialist and husband of Kelly Baraki) and the two teachers.
2. Aurora Regino v. Chico Unified School District (superintendent and school board members) – Federal Court, Eastern District, case no. 2:23-cv-00032 (filed 1/06/2023).
A case almost identical to the Konen matter was filed by a mother against Chico Unified School District. In this case, the school engaged in the secret transition of an 11-year-old, 5th-grade girl. Once removed from the indoctrinating school, the young girl returned to identifying as her immutable sex. This action is currently in the appellate court. There was a hearing in May of 2024 which from all accounts appears to have been in the mother’s favor which will revive the case. I estimate that the lawsuit has cost the Chico School District at least $200,000 in attorney’s fees to date which will continue to increase. I expect that once the case is revived, the school will attempt to settle with Regino. Regino is represented by Konen’s nationally-recognized pro bono attorney.
3. Jessica Tapia v. Jurupa Unified School District; Trenton Hansen, and Daniel Brooks (school superintendent and assistant superintendent) - Federal Court, Central District of California, case no. 5:23-cv-00789 (filed 08/24/23).
Teacher Jessica Tapia filed suit against Jurupa Unified School District and the superintendents, alleging wrongful termination because she refused to comply with Jurupa’s parent-secrecy policy – Policy 5145.3. She also refused to permit males to use the female locker rooms and bathrooms. The school attempted to dismiss the case but was unsuccessful. On May 13, 2024, Tapia settled for $360,000. The attorney’s fees expended by the district is estimated to be about $60,000. Tapia was represented pro bono by a firm that is creating state-wide guidance to protect teachers who do not wish to deceive parents.
4. Mae M. et. al v. Komrosky et al. (superintendent and school board members) - State Court, Riverside County, case no. CVSW2306224 (filed 2/28/24).
In the Mae matter, the trial court issued its preliminary injunction ruling refusing to enjoin the parental notification policy adopted by Temecula Unified School District that requires parents to be notified if their student is requesting to be treated as a gender that does not align with their sex. Its policy mirrored the original Chino Valley Unified School District’s policy. The judge found that the student’s equal protection rights were not violated; specifically that the policy is not discriminatory. This preliminary injunction order has been appealed. The District is being represented by the same pro bono law firm as teacher Jessica Tapia.
5. Attorney General Rob Bonta v. Chino Valley Unified School District - State Court – San Bernardino County, case no. Civ. SB2317301 (filed 8/8/23).
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against Chino for its parental notification policy that would have required the school to notify the parents when their student is suffering from gender dysphoria. It had three triggering events – (1) student requests to be asked to be treated as a gender other than birth sex; (2) student requests to participate in sex-segregated activities, sports and bathrooms that do not align with his/her birth sex; and (3) requests to change official or unofficial school records.
The Attorney General filed a preliminary injunction motion, requesting that the policy be enjoined from being followed while the case moved forward. The judge ruled that triggers (1) and (2) were discriminatory, but that trigger (3) was not. During the hearing, the judge stated that there is no privacy expectation when a student is publicly expressing a transgender identity in school. Chino Valley opted to revise its policy to just have the one triggering event. The Attorney General has now filed a motion seeking to continue to litigate the three triggers while Chino has filed a competing motion, claiming that the case is now moot. The hearing is set for July 31, 2024.
6. Mirabelli et. al v. Olson - Federal Court – Southern District, case no. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET (filed 1/21/23)
This case was filed by two teachers who refused to deceive parents about their student’s gender identities. The judge has been ruling in the teachers’ favor and by extension, parents, and every hearing demonstrates that this pattern will continue. He expressly stated that the secret policy hurts students, parents and teachers alike. The judge recognized parental rights are paramount.
The CDE is a defendant in the case, and the court has yet to rule if Governor Newsom and/or Attorney General Rob Bonta will remain as defendants in the case. The attorneys for the teachers indicated that they will be adding additional plaintiffs including parents and perhaps others. Mirabelli is going to be the most important case in the state, that is my prediction.
Thank you for your informative summaries. Your tireless efforts are much appreciated.
Such great and important work for families! Well done.