Opponents Try Again to Block Florida Education Law
Plaintiffs are two students in Miami-Dade County and Manatee County schools, two lesbian couples with children in Miami-Dade County schools, a woman with children in Orange County schools and two teachers in Broward County and Pasco County schools.
November 01, 2022 at 10:29 AM
4 minute read
After a federal judge rejected an earlier attempt, students, parents and teachers have filed a revised lawsuit seeking to block a new Florida law that restricts classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The challenge, filed Thursday in the Northern District of Florida, argues that the plaintiffs have suffered "concrete harms" from the law (HB 1557), which spurred a fierce debate this year in the Legislature and has drawn national attention.
"They have been denied equal educational opportunities they would like to receive, in the curriculum and beyond, and they have been subjected to a discriminatory educational environment that treats LGBTQ people and issues as something to be shunned and avoided, on pain of discipline and liability," the 60-page lawsuit said. "This type of overtly discriminatory treatment has no place in a free democratic society and should not be permitted to stand."
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor on Sept. 29 dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs did not have legal standing. Winsor, however, said the plaintiffs could file a revised lawsuit.
The law 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.
The revised lawsuit alleges that the measure violates constitutional due-process, equal-protection and First Amendment rights, along with a federal law known as Title IX, which bars sex-based discrimination in education programs.
Plaintiffs are two students in Miami-Dade County and Manatee County schools, two lesbian couples with children in Miami-Dade County schools, a woman with children in Orange County schools and two teachers in Broward County and Pasco County schools. The defendants are the State Board of Education, the Florida Department of Education and the school boards in Broward, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Orange and Pasco counties.
In his Sept. 29 decision dismissing the earlier version, Winsor wrote that one factor in determining standing is whether a plaintiff can show a link between a "defendant's action and the resulting harm."
"The principal problem is that most of plaintiffs' alleged harm is not plausibly tied to the law's enforcement so much as the law's very existence," Winsor wrote. "Plaintiffs contend the law's passage, the sentiment behind it, the legislators' motivation, and the message the law conveys all cause them harm. But no injunction can unwind any of that."
The revised version, however, seeks to link the law with harm. As examples, it cited a decision by the Miami-Dade County School Board to reject a resolution designating October as LGBTQ History Month; said one of the student plaintiffs, identified by the initials M.A., could not find a teacher willing to sponsor the Gay-Straight Alliance at a Manatee County school; and said Broward County schools removed LGBTQ-related books after receiving complaints from the conservative group Moms for Liberty.
Also, the lawsuit cited an Oct. 19 decision by the State Board of Education to approve a rule that could lead to teachers losing their licenses for violating the law.
"The intended impact of this law is apparent," the lawsuit said. "It seeks to undo the equal inclusion of LGBTQ people and issues in Florida's schools and to impede policies requiring equal treatment and support of LGBTQ students. Presented with vague prohibitions under the threat of litigation, schools and educators have been and will be chilled from discussing or even referencing LGBTQ people, and LGBTQ students have been and will be stigmatized, ostracized, and denied the educational opportunities that their non-LGBTQ peers receive."
While lawyers for the state have not filed a response to the revised lawsuit, they disputed in a June court document 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."
Students, parents and a non-profit group filed a separate challenge to the law this summer in federal court in Orlando. U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger on Oct. 20 dismissed that case but, like Winsor, gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a revised version. The deadline for filing is Thursday.
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 AllBeef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
2 minute readFlorida Supreme Court Clarifies Qualifications for Court-Appointed Arbitrators
3 minute read$5.5M Miami Verdict: Meet the Lawyers Behind the Slip-and-Fall Suit
Trending Stories
- 1Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 2People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 3Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
- 4Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
- 5Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
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