Thomas More Society attorneys are representing teachers and parents in a lawsuit over Parental Exclusion Policies on the gender identity of California students.
Under these policies, teachers and administrators are required to use preferred pronouns requested by a student and hide a child’s gender identity from parents. They use biological pronouns and legal names only when speaking with parents, if the child requests parents be kept in the dark.
In the case Mirabelli v. Olson, the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm, is representing the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against the Escondido Union School District, the California Department of Education and California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
With a hearing set for Aug. 18, the case could lead to a federal court decision ending gender exclusion policies across California.
The suit began in April 2023 when two Escondido teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West, sued their school district in San Diego County and the CDE, after the district refused to grant them religious accommodation. In September 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued a court order blocking the EUSD from enforcing its Parental Exclusion Policy against Mirabelli and West.
In his decision, Benitez wrote that EUSD’s Parental Exclusion Policy: “… harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children.”
The judge referred to the gender secrecy policies as a “trifecta of harm,” said Paul Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP.
“Forcing teachers to hide a child’s gender identity from their own parents and compelling them to act against their faith is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous,” said Jonna. “Parents, not bureaucrats, are responsible for raising and caring for their children, and are the best equipped to protect their child’s well-being.”
Defendants have attempted to get the case dismissed, Jonna told The Center Square. “They filed serial motions to dismiss, all of which were denied, and they have done nothing to address the obviously dangerous and unconstitutional policies they’ve been promoting.
“EUSD has attempted to modify their policy to comply with the court’s rulings, but they are deferring to the state regarding how to proceed,” said Jonna. “Our team is leaving no stones unturned in our preparation for this consequential court hearing.”
Parent-plaintiffs Jane and John Poe’s child, “Child Poe” (all with names to protect their identity), had been identifying as a boy at school.
According to the state’s gender policies, the school was required to keep this information from Poe’s parents.
The parents said they first learned about their daughter’s gender preferences when doctors informed them about her attempted suicide.
“Child Poe’s story is a parent’s worst nightmare,” Jonna said.
Parents should be able to trust schools, yet the CDE and the attorney general are hiding foundational information about their children, the attorney added.
“Our fight is not political — it’s about upholding the Constitution, defending religious liberty, and protecting families from policies that endanger children like Child Poe,” said Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation at Thomas More Society. “Parental Exclusion Policies are illegal, morally abhorrent, and belong in the dustbin of history.”
The Center Square reached out for comment, but the CDE said it cannot comment on pending litigation. And the California attorney general’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
