‍IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

‍

Michelle Landerer,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No.

v.
Dover Area School District; Dover Area School District Board of Directors; Nathan Eifert, individually and in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Directors; Terry Emig, individually and in his official capacity as Vice-President of the Board of Directors; Denis Dachaux, individually and in his official capacity as Treasurer of the Board of Directors; Amy Briton, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors; Kathy Herman individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors; Heidi Mease, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors; Charles Rausauer, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors; Carmen Witmer, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors; David Wolverton, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors; Kelly Cartwright, individually and in her official capacity as Superintendent of Dover Area School District; Tuesday Hufnagel, individually and in her official capacity as Principal of Dover Area Middle School; Shantal Williams, individually and in her official capacity as Regular Education/Emotional Support Teacher at Dover Area Middle School
Defendants.

‍

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

‍

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff files this action seeking damages for Defendants’ violations of her fundamental parental rights to direct the upbringing, physical and mental health decision-making for her children, her fundamental right to familial privacy, and her fundamental right to free exercise of religion under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions.
2. Defendants violated and continue to violate Plaintiff’s fundamental rights by establishing and implementing an ad hoc policy and/or directive, (hereinafter “Directive”), that deliberately conceals from Plaintiff critical information regarding her daughter’s mental health and well-being, i.e., her assertion of a discordant gender identity and request to be affirmed in that identity through the use of alternative names, pronouns, and other measures, without the knowledge and consent and even over the objection of Plaintiff.
3. Defendant Dover Area School District (“District”) administration mandates that school staff purposefully and intentionally withhold information from, and mislead and deceive parents by, referring to their child by his or her legal name and biologically-accurate pronouns when communicating with parents, but using the child’s expressed assumed name and pronouns at all other times, unless the child has consented to informing his or her parents. In so doing, Defendants have violated and continue to violate Ms. Landerer’s fundamental parental rights under the United States Constitution and free exercise rights under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions.
4. Defendants’ actions are particularly egregious with regard to Ms. Landerer’s daughter, O.G., whom Defendants know is a survivor of childhood trauma and has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”), and General Anxiety Disorder (“GAD”) for whom affirming a discordant gender identity is antithetical to her health and well-being. Despite this foreknowledge, Defendants purposefully and recklessly disregarded the known risk of harm to O.G. and continue to do so, even stating that District personnel have and will continue to intentionally lie to Plaintiff about referring to O.G. as a boy, using the name “Caleb” and male pronouns.
5. Plaintiff is asking this Court to remedy the violations of her fundamental rights and the resulting harm to her daughter and possible, if not likely, harm to her son by granting injunctive and declaratory relief and awarding damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, to Plaintiff.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking redress of injuries suffered by Plaintiff from deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by the laws of the United States and the laws of Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).
7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and other applicable law because the events and omissions giving rise to the claims in this action arose in Pennsylvania. Venue is also proper in this Court because the Defendants reside or have their principal place of business in this District.
8. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, implemented through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
9. An actual controversy exists between the parties involving substantial constitutional issues, in that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ policies, procedures, directives, and actions taken in accordance with them, on their face and as applied, violate the United States Constitution and have infringed Plaintiff’s rights, while Defendants will erroneously allege that their policies, procedures, directives, and actions comport with the Constitution and are required under Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, 28 U.S.C. §1681, et seq.
10. This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiff’s prayer for relief regarding costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Michelle Landerer is the mother and legal guardian of O.G., who was a student at Dover Area Middle School, and J.G., who is a student at Weigelstown Elementary School, both of which are part of Dover Area School District.
12. Dover Area School District is a unified school district organized and existing as “a body corporate” under 24 Pa. Stat. §§ 211-223. Defendant Board of Directors is the governing body of the District under 24 Pa. Stat. § 5-507, capable of suing and being sued under 24 Pa. Stat. § 5-515 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “District”).
13. Defendant Nathan Eifert (hereinafter “Eifert”) was, at all relevant times alleged herein, a member and the President of the District Board of Directors. Eifert is sued in his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendant Terry Emig (hereinafter “Emig”) is currently a member, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was the Vice-President of the District Board of Directors. Emig is sued in his individual and official capacities.
15. Defendant Denis Dachaux (hereinafter “Dachaux”) was, at all relevant times alleged herein, a member and the Treasurer of the District Board of Directors. Dachaux is sued in his individual and official capacities.
16. Defendant Amy Briton (hereinafter “Briton”) was, at all relevant times alleged herein, a member of the District Board of Directors. Briton is sued in her individual and official capacities.
17. Defendant Kathy Herman (hereinafter “Herman”) was, at all relevant times alleged herein, a member of the District Board of Directors. Herman is sued in her individual and official capacities.
18. Defendant Heidi Mease (hereinafter “Mease”) is currently, and at all relevant times alleged herein was, a member of the District Board of Directors. Mease is sued in her individual and official capacities.
19. Defendant Charles Rausauer (hereinafter “Rausauer”) was at all relevant times alleged herein a member of the District Board of Directors. Rausauer is sued in his individual and official capacities.
20. Defendant Carmen Witmer (hereinafter “Witmer”) is currently, and at all relevant times alleged herein was, a member of the District Board of Directors. Witmer is sued in her individual and official capacities.
21. Defendant David Wolverton (hereinafter “Wolverton”) is currently, and at all relevant times alleged herein was, a member of the District Board of Directors. Wolverton is sued in his individual and official capacities.
22. Defendant Kelly Cartwright (hereinafter “Cartwright”) is the Superintendent of the District. Cartwright is sued in her individual and official capacities.
23. Defendant Tuesday Hufnagel (hereinafter “Hufnagel”) is the Principal of Dover Area Middle School, which is part of the District. Hufnagel is sued in her individual and official capacities.
24. Defendant Shantal Williams (hereinafter “Williams”) is the emotional support teacher at Dover Area Middle School. Williams is sued in her individual and official capacities.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

25. Ms. Landerer’s daughter, O.G., is 14 years old. She experienced childhood trauma and has been under the care of physicians and mental health professionals since that time.
26. O.G. was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), Conversion Disorder (“CDO”), General Anxiety Disorder (“GAD”), and Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”), all of which manifest in the form of diminished emotional regulation. Because of O.G.'s diagnoses, she qualified for, and has in place, an Accommodation Plan pursuant Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et. seq. (“Sec. 504”) with the District.
27. O.G. was a student in Dover Area School District from 2016 to May 2023.
28. In 2022, during her eighth grade year of middle school, O.G. was experiencing significant anxiety and behavior issues.
29. O.G. was already under the care of a private counselor chosen by her mother who was providing mental health therapy. When O.G. began experiencing increased stress and anxiety, Plaintiff increased the frequency of the therapy sessions.
30. In August 2022, O.G. told her private counselor that she thought she might be “trans.” The counselor and Ms. Landerer began discussing that issue with O.G. and working through her feelings with her.
31. Defendants’ fashioning and implementation of the Directive as de facto policy resulted in the deception of and withholding from parents of information necessary for parents to make informed decisions concerning their children's health and welfare.
32. Defendants made statements in public and private meetings that children’s safety requires concealing information from parents because some parents will not affirm the child’s wishes.
33. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, during the 2021-2022 school year, O.G. told her teachers at Dover Area Middle School that she wanted to be treated as a boy and use the name “Caleb”.
34. Ms. Landerer was not informed or advised by the District regarding O.G.’s request to be treated as a different sex and called by an alternate name, despite O.G. having mental health diagnoses and qualifying disabilities pursuant to Sec 504, all of which the District was fully aware.
35. During the 2021-2022 school year, Defendant Williams, unbeknownst to and without Plaintiff’s consent, regularly met with O.G. for the purpose of affirming O.G.’s request to be treated as a different sex and called by an alternate name and facilitating O.G.’s gender transition.
36. In August 2022, Ms. Landerer first learned that O.G. had been and was being affirmed as a boy named “Caleb” at school by personnel of the District when her son, J.G., then a student at Dover Area School District, was approached by a teacher/employee of the District and asked, “How is your brother ‘Caleb’ doing?” J.G. responded by stating that he did not have a brother named Caleb and the teacher informed him that his sister O.G. had requested and was being affirmed by District staff as a boy named “Caleb”. J.G. then told his mother, Plaintiff Michelle Landerer, about his conversation with the teacher. Had it not been for J.G.’s conversation with the District teacher, Ms. Landerer might never have learned that her vulnerable daughter was being secretly and deliberately affirmed as a boy (socially transitioned to a male identity) by District personnel.
37. Ms. Landerer spoke with O.G. She told her she is too young to make such decisions, that her legal name is “O”, that she can legally change her name when she becomes an adult and that she could work through her feelings on the issue in the counseling she was receiving. O.G. said that she felt pressured to continue using the male name and being identified as a boy because that was now how District personnel at school regarded her.
38. On August 11, 2022, Ms. Landerer sent a text message to Hufnagel at Dover Area Middle School saying: “O. is registered as O.G. and I expect she will be addressed as such. NOT CALEB… There is NO room for discussion about this matter and have discussed this with [O.G.’s therapist] as well so I am expecting there to be no confusion…” A true and correct copy of Ms. Landerer’s text message is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
39. On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff met with Hufnagel and other District personnel. During this meeting, District personnel confirmed that during the 2021-2022 school year District staff had in fact affirmed O.G. as a boy, used the name Caleb, and male pronouns when referring to O.G.
40. Ms. Landerer asked O.G. to tell her teachers to call her “O” instead of “Caleb” and O.G. said she did so. Ms. Landerer later learned that O.G. had told her teachers to call her “O” in Ms. Landerer’s presence because her mother wanted it. Hufnagel confirmed that she, Hufnagel, would refer to O.G. as “O” in Ms. Landerer’s presence, but as “Caleb” in all other scenarios.
41. Ms. Landerer’s son, J.G. is 11 years old and currently is a student at Weigelstown Elementary School and has been a student enrolled in Dover Area School District since 2019.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Violation of Plaintiff’s Substantive Due Process Fundamental Parental Right to Direct the Upbringing of Her Child under the U.S. Constitution)
(Against all Defendants)

42. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding factual allegations in paragraphs 1-41 by reference as if set forth in full.
43. At the time of the events described in this Complaint, U.S. Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent had established that the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, care, custody, and control of their children. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68 (2000); Gruenke v. Seip, 223 F. 3d 290, 305 (3rd Cir. 2000); Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F. 3d 139, 150 (3rd Cir 2000).
44. Defendants have violated and are continuing to violate Plaintiff’s fundamental rights to make important decisions regarding the upbringing, custody, care, and control of her children in establishing and implementing the Directive that prohibits informing parents regarding their children’s assertions of discordant gender identity and attendant requests to be treated as a different sex, i.e. socially transition, unless their minor children consent.
45. Defendants have acted and are continuing to act with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s fundamental parental rights by purposefully and intentionally concealing critical information and decisions regarding the upbringing, care, and control of her daughter O.G., i.e., that her daughter was asserting a discordant gender identity, had requested to be treated as the opposite of her biological sex, addressed by an alternate name and pronouns, and other information and decisions associated with affirming the child’s gender discordance.
46. Defendants continue to act with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s fundamental parental rights by continuing to implement the Directive, which expressly requires District personnel to deliberately conceal and withhold from parents of District students, like Plaintiff, critical information regarding the status of their children’s mental health and well-being.
47. Defendants, and each of them, have acted and are acting with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s fundamental parental rights as described infra.

Defendants School Board And Individual Members Are Acting with Reckless Disregard for Plaintiff’s Fundamental Parental Rights

48. Defendant School Board and the individual members of the Board of Directors know or should know that the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States and Third Circuit, provide that the fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of children resides first in the parent and cannot be infringed by state actors absent a compelling state interest.
49. Defendants School Board and its individual members have acted and continue to act with reckless disregard for those established fundamental rights by failing to adequately direct, train and/or supervise District administration and staff that parental rights must be respected when addressing critical issues involving children’s mental health and emotional well-being such as a child’s assertion of a discordant gender identity and request for social transition in the forms of being treated as the other sex, including the use of alternate names and pronouns at school.
50. Defendants School Board and its individual members knowingly and purposely failed to act in keeping with 24 PS § 5-515 and the United States Constitution to protect parental rights by ensuring that parents are informed when a child seeks to socially transition at school and consents before instituting the child’s request. Instead of acting to protect parental rights, the Board has sanctioned and permitted District administrators to implement and maintain a standardless, ad hoc policy (the Directive) that prohibits parental notification when children request to socially transition to another gender identity unless the minor child consents.
51. The Board’s and Board members’ sanctioning of an ad hoc policy (Directive) leaves the issue of whether the fundamental rights of parents to direct the care, custody, and control of their children will be respected through notification of and adherence to parental instructions concerning social transitioning of their children to the unbridled discretion of District administrators and staff.
52. As a direct result of the Board’s and of Board members’ acts and failures to act, the fundamental parental rights of Plaintiff have been infringed.
53. Plaintiff’s fundamental parental rights will continue to be infringed so long as the Directive remains in effect, in that Plaintiff will continue to face the threat of having her son who continues to attend Dover Area Schools socially transitioned without her knowledge and consent.

Defendant Cartwright Is Acting with Reckless Disregard for Plaintiff’s Fundamental Parental Rights

54. Defendant Cartwright knows or should know that the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States and Third Circuit, and 24 PS § 10-1001, et sec. provide that the fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of children resides first in the parent and cannot be infringed by state actors absent a compelling state interest.
55. Defendant Cartwright has acted with reckless disregard for those established fundamental rights by failing to adequately train or supervise District staff that parental rights must be respected when addressing critical issues involving children’s mental health and emotional well

‍