San Diego, CA- Thomas More Society attorneys have now gained full access to the mandatory PRISM teacher training, authored by the California Department of Education (CDE), which reveal that the CDE-authored materials, distributed to school districts statewide, indisputably include directives to withhold information from parents about their children’s “gender identity.”

The discovery comes days before a November 17 summary judgment hearing in Mirabelli v. Olson, where in addition to deciding the constitutionality of “Parental Exclusion Policies,” a federal judge will also weigh enforcing sanctions against state education officials who misled the Court about rescinding these directives.

The training materials restate, almost word-for-word, the same unconstitutional directives to hide a student’s new gender identity from his or her parents, which the CDE claims it had rescinded. But new evidence shows the CDE partnered with nineteen LGBTQ+ advocacy groups—including the ACLU, Equality California, Our Family Coalition, The Trevor Project, GLSEN, and others—to distribute identical directives statewide under these groups’ letterheads and with state education officials’ full blessing and approval.

The CDE has represented to the Court that they had rescinded the challenged gender secrecy directives and have argued that the lawsuit should be considered moot by the Court. In a supplemental brief filed yesterday, Thomas More Society attorneys revealed that despite such representations made to the Court, the CDE had actually moved their gender secrecy directives to their mandatory PRISM training, which are sent to every California school district.

“We now have irrefutable evidence that the CDE covertly moved these unconstitutional gender secrecy directives inside a password-protected training hidden away from public view, and distributed them to school districts statewide,” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP.

For example, in a video recording of PRISM’s Course 3, the training discusses the need for teachers to advocate for “gender-affirming” policies. The training then hyperlinks to a model district policy prepared by GLSEN, stating: “Click here to download a model district policy that is affirming.” The model policy says: “School staff shall not disclose any information that may reveal a student’s transgender status to others, including parents or guardians...”

The CDE’s PRISM training materials also direct teachers and school staff to a resource from Our Family Coalition, titled “School Legal Responsibilities,” that says: “School staff must respect students’ right to privacy and may not affirmatively disclose a student’s LGBTQ status to others without the student’s permission…” The training additionally points teachers to an ACLU webpage reiterating gender secrecy directives.

“The State claimed in court that it had rescinded the gender secrecy directives we are challenging,” Jonna added. “But we now have evidence of a coordinated, statewide campaign to enforce Parental Exclusion Policies. The State Defendants are attempting to knowingly mislead a Federal Court in order to evade judicial review and prejudice Plaintiffs and the Certified Class. This is one of the most egregious attempts I’ve seen—if not the most—to mislead a Court, and it warrants severe sanctions.”

Read the Supplemental Brief, the Supplemental Declaration, and associated Exhibits, here.

Background:

• Mirabelli v. Olson challenges California’s “Parental Exclusion Policies” instructing teachers to conceal a student’s gender transition from parents.

• Judge Benitez certified Mirabelli as a class action lawsuit representing every California teacher and parent who objects to Parental Exclusion Policies in schools.

• On Friday, Judge Benitez ordered state officials to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned for misleading the Court about these directives being rescinded.

• Monday’s filing reveals new evidence demonstrating that the CDE developed and disseminated PRISM training statewide, embedding the same directives under new branding and distributing them through different channels.

‍

‍