The Encinitas Union School District settled a lawsuit filed by the parents of two students who said a class activity involving a book about gender identity infringed on the students’ religious beliefs.
Read more Trump to meet acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez in New York next week, White House says
The settlement resolves a San Diego federal case that began in 2024, a year before a Supreme Court decision that said schools must provide advance notice of, and allow parents to opt out of, instruction that may substantially interfere with their religious beliefs, such as LGBTQ-inclusive instruction.
Two years ago, two fifth-grade students at Encinitas’ La Costa Heights Elementary School and their families sued school officials in federal district court regarding a classroom activity for the school’s “buddy” program that paired the fifth-graders with kindergarteners.
According to the , S.E. v. Grey, a teacher played a read-along video of a children’s book about gender identity called “My Shadow is Pink” to the fifth-graders and their kindergarten buddies.
The book is about a boy who has a pink shadow, unlike his father and his male classmates, whose shadows are blue. The boy’s pink shadow likes dresses, princesses and pink toys, and the boy finds acceptance from himself and others for his pink shadow, which his father says represents “your inner-most you.”
After playing the read-along of the book, the teacher then instructed the fifth-graders to have their kindergarten buddies pick a color representing their gender identity and to trace their shadow with that color, according to the lawsuit.
The activity conflicted with the student plaintiffs’ Christian beliefs, which teach that humans are created by God as man or woman and people cannot choose their own gender identity, plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.
The parent plaintiffs said they should have been given a chance to opt their kids out of the activity, but the school said it was not required to offer an opt-out because it wasn’t part of the school’s health education curriculum, in line with state guidance at the time.
The parents argued that their children’s free speech rights had been violated because they were forced to participate in an activity that contradicted their religious beliefs, and that the parents’ free exercise rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing had also been violated.
In May of last year, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs by granting them a , saying they would be likely to succeed on the merits of their case.
Then, the next month, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a similar case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which parent plaintiffs in a Maryland school district objected to their children being taught with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks for religious reasons.
Read more Trump says his son’s wedding party being bankrolled by a Russian oligarch is ‘totally allowed’
The court sided with the parents in Mahmoud, saying that the Maryland school board had substantially interfered with the parents’ religious upbringing of their children by introducing the LGBTQ storybooks and failing to notify parents in advance and offer an opt-out from the instruction.
The Encinitas school district changed its religious beliefs policy two months after the Mahmoud decision.
The district’s policy now says that schools must give parents at least five calendar days advance notice and a chance to opt out of curriculum that “would substantially interfere with the religious development of the child or pose a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in the child.”
The settlement is not an admission or concession regarding the merits of the case, the Encinitas district said.
“There are no winners when limited public education resources are diverted from classrooms to prolonged litigation,” said Marisa Janine-Page, co-counsel for the district defendants, in a statement. “That is why the district chose to resolve this case, so it could put the litigation behind it and move forward focused on its students and its educational mission.”
The district agreed to pay a $175,000 settlement, consisting of $10,000 to each of the student plaintiffs to pay for college, $27,000 in attorney’s fees and the rest to the parent plaintiffs.
Other school districts also amended their religious beliefs policies last year to reflect the Mahmoud decision. San Diego Unified, for example, amended its policy last September to allow parents to ask for an opt-out of instruction they believe substantially interferes with their religious beliefs, by submitting a written request.
Nate Kellum, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute who represented the Encinitas plaintiffs, said the Encinitas settlement “should put other districts in California on notice” as some districts may still be figuring out how to implement the Mahmoud decision.
Before Mahmoud, the California Department of Education said state law only allows parents to opt out of sexual health education overall, and schools cannot let parents opt out of only instruction about LGBTQ topics, as that could risk violating state anti-discrimination laws.
Now, the state department says districts and charters may have to offer opt-outs for curriculum that may “undermine the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.” But, the department says that “the Mahmoud ruling should not be interpreted to require or allow the erasure of any particular group from public school curricular content.”
Read more Trump signs sweeping Russia sanctions bill, aiming to choke off funds for Moscow in Ukraine war
