In Foote v. Town of Ludlow, the parents of two middle school aged children filed suit against the Ludlow Public Schools alleging the Schools violated their fundamental, parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

More specifically, the parents alleged staff spoke about gender identity with their children, complied with the children’s request to use alternative names and pronouns, and did not share that information with them. This followed the parents’ instruction to the Schools that they not discuss gender identity with their children after one of their children spoke with a teacher and raised concerns about talking with their parents about depression, low self-esteem, poor self-image and possible same-sex attraction. The parents claimed that by doing so the Schools violated their fundamental parental rights to direct the education and upbringing of their children, direct medical and mental health decision-making for their children, and family privacy.

Granting the Schools’ Motion to Dismiss, the United States District Court found the parents failed to raise sufficient factual allegations to support their conclusory statements that by honoring the children’s request to use their preferred names and pronouns, the Schools provided medical or mental health treatment. The Court also found the parents failed to allege facts to establish the Schools’ conduct was “conscious shocking” as required to meet the necessary elements of a civil rights claim on any of the parents’ legal theories.

The Court found the staff’s conduct was consistent with a School Committee policy of withholding information about a student’s gender identity from their parents unless the student consented to such communication. The Court further found that the policy was consistent with Massachusetts law and “the goal of providing transgender and gender nonconforming students with a safe school environment.” Though the Court opined that students and parents would be better served by a policy that facilitates safe and supportive communications between students and parents, the Court recognized the challenges students and parents face with the subject and the potential negative and harmful reactions it could evoke.

For many years, Massachusetts has recognized gender identity as a personal characteristic deserving of protection from discrimination. Indeed, the Court noted that “[a]ddressing a person using their preferred name and pronouns simply accords the person the basic level of respect expected in a civil society generally, and, more specifically, in Massachusetts public schools where discrimination on the basis of gender identity is not permitted.”

The decision is a victory for schools, and affirms the actions taken by staff to support the well-being of students pursuant to an internal policy. Schools, however, should take note of the Court’s support for a policy that facilitates safe and supportive communications between students and parents.