Legal settlements involving school districts in Indiana and Nevada resolve First Amendment claims tied to disputes over gender identity policies and parental rights.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Two school districts have reached legal settlements in separate First Amendment cases involving disputes over criticism of gender identity policies, with combined payments and legal concessions exceeding $200,000, according to a Just the News report.
The cases were brought by public interest legal organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, which cites 17 wins at the Supreme Court in the past 15 years, and the Center for American Liberty, an organization founded by a former Trump administration official.
In Indiana, the South Madison Community School Corporation agreed to pay $195,000 in damages, attorney’s fees, and costs to resolve litigation filed on behalf of school counselor Kathy McCord, according to details provided by the Alliance Defending Freedom. The lawsuit, described in a related report, alleged that McCord was terminated after confirming to a journalist that the district did not disclose certain student gender identity information to parents.
The dispute arose amid evolving state law. Indiana lawmakers had recently enacted legislation, outlined in House Bill 1608, restricting policies that conceal student gender identity information from parents. McCord subsequently filed suit, as documented in court records, challenging the district’s practices and her termination.
Internal communications referenced in the case included an email from the superintendent suggesting the law did not apply to the district’s “gender support plans.” According to court filings, McCord opposed those plans, stating in testimony that “she felt like she was lying to parents”.
The district maintained that McCord was terminated for providing inaccurate information to a reporter and for misleading administrators regarding document access. The case concluded after a federal judge approved a joint stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.
ADF senior counsel Vincent Wagner stated, “No American should be fired for expressing her beliefs, especially not an educator speaking in her personal capacity, on her own time, and out of concern for her students.”
In Nevada, the Clark County School District reached a separate settlement involving a parent who alleged she was blocked from district social media platforms after posting criticism related to classroom displays. The lawsuit, filed by the Center for American Liberty and detailed in the complaint, resulted in a $10,000 payment for legal fees, according to the organization’s statement.
As part of the agreement, the district revised its social media terms of use to ensure that content is not removed based solely on viewpoint. The updated policy establishes a warning and appeals process for users facing moderation actions.
The plaintiff in the Nevada case said, “Parents can no longer be silenced or retaliated against for opposing the gender and sexual ideologies being pushed in our school district.”
While the Nevada district confirmed that a settlement was reached, it did not publicly verify the reported financial amount, stating only that the agreement resolved the dispute and updated platform policies.
Additional scrutiny is being directed at policies in other districts. America First Legal has asked federal agencies to investigate Montgomery County Public Schools over its gender identity guidelines. In a formal letter, the group argued that the district’s interpretation of federal student privacy law conflicts with statutory language, stating that “FERPA restricts disclosure to third parties, but parents are FERPA’s primary rights holders, not third parties.”
The policies in question are outlined in the district’s gender identity guidelines, which describe how schools develop support plans for students and address communication with families based on individual circumstances.
Montgomery County Public Schools responded in a statement to Bethesda Today that its policies undergo regular review and are intended to comply with legal requirements. Spokesperson Liliana López said the district remains committed to supporting students while ensuring adherence to applicable laws.
The legal developments follow recent Supreme Court activity related to parental rights and school policies, including prior rulings referenced in litigation filings. Further proceedings and potential policy changes may depend on ongoing federal review and future court decisions.
Original article
Comments