State Asks Judge to Toss Out Education Fight
"Falsely dubbed by its opponents the "Don't Say Gay" bill, HB 1557 is nothing of the sort," the motion said.
June 30, 2022 at 09:00 AM
4 minute read
Attorney General Ashley Moody's office is asking a federal judge to toss out a challenge to a controversial new law that restricts instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in Florida public schools.
Lawyers for the state filed a 60-page motion Monday arguing that U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor should dismiss the case filed by the LGBTQ-advocacy groups Equality Florida and Family Equality, students, parents and teachers.
The law (HB 1557), which has drawn nationwide attention, prevents instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade and requires that such instruction be "age-appropriate … in accordance with state academic standards" in older grades.
Republican lawmakers titled the measure the "Parental Rights in Education" bill. Opponents labeled it the "Don't Say Gay" bill.
Monday's motion to dismiss the lawsuit raised a series of arguments, including that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing and that the state has the right to set curriculums for public schools. It also took issue with the "Don't Say Gay" moniker.
"Falsely dubbed by its opponents the "Don't Say Gay" bill, HB 1557 is nothing of the sort," the motion said. "Far from banning discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, the legislation expressly allows age- and developmentally appropriate education on those subjects. Consistent with that modest limitation, the law prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity for the youngest children, neutrally allowing all parents, no matter their views, to introduce those sensitive topics to their children as they see fit."
The motion also argued that the plaintiffs "have not come close to showing that the Legislature acted out of animus against LGBTQ individuals."
"The bill reflects no governmental preference about what students should learn about sexual orientation and gender identity," the state's lawyers wrote. "Those subjects must be taught appropriately and, for the youngest children, they may be taught by parents, not in public-school classroom settings. That is a legitimate (state) interest."
But the lawsuit alleged that the measure is unconstitutional, discriminatory and "clearly the product of animus towards Florida's LGBTQ community."
"HB 1557 piles one (constitutional) violation on top of another," the lawsuit said. "It offends principles of free speech and equal protection by seeking to censor discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity that recognize and respect LGBTQ people and their families. It offends due process by using broad and vague terms to define its prohibitions — thus inviting discriminatory enforcement and magnifying its chilling effect on speech. And it arises from discriminatory purposes and outdated sex-based stereotypes that offend deeply rooted constitutional and statutory requirements."
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit March 31, three days after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the measure into law. Defendants are DeSantis, the State Board of Education, the Florida Department of Education, Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. and several school boards.
Some school boards also have filed motions to dismiss the case, though the Miami-Dade County School Board filed a document Monday that said it "takes no position on the merits of plaintiffs' amended complaint (the lawsuit) or on its co-defendants' potential defenses on the merits."
"The Miami-Dade School Board will abide by any final judgment of this court concerning the challenged statute," the document said.
The law is slated to take effect Friday, but the state's motion to dismiss said the restrictions will immediately apply only to instruction in kindergarten through third grade. That is because the Department of Education still needs to develop rules for "age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate instruction" in older grades, the motion said.
The department has until June 30, 2023, to develop those standards.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGraffiti Showdown: Miami Clashes Over Demolition Site Cleanup Before New Year’s
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250