Attorneys for a former Jurupa Unified School District teacher who sued the district for firing her over what she argued were religious grounds because she questioned a policy not to tell parents about children’s gender identity choices announced Tuesday that a settlement had been reached.
“What happened to me can happen to anybody, and I want the next teacher to know that it is worth it to take a stand for what is right,” former physical educator instructor Jessica Tapia said. “Across the country, we are seeing teachers’ freedom of speech and religious liberty violated through policies that require them to forsake their morals. I want teachers to be confident in the fact that the best thing we can do for students is educate in truth, not deception.”
Her attorneys, from Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said Tapia and JUSD agreed Monday to settle her claims with a $360,000 payout, ending the ongoing federal civil rights litigation.
A district spokeswoman said the JUSD Board of Trustees voted in favor of the settlement agreement without admitting “any fault or wrongdoing.”
“The decision to settle this case was made in conjunction with the district’s self-insurance administrators and in the best interest of the students, such that the district would be able to dedicate all of its resources and efforts to its student population, regardless of their protected class,” according to a statement released to City News Service.
Tapia had filed her civil action based on Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits religious viewpoint discrimination. After her dismissal in February 2023, the district said that it “takes seriously the obligation to accommodate its employee’s religious beliefs. Simultaneously, the district is obligated to comply with all local, state and federal laws, including … laws that protect students’ rights to privacy.”
Tapia said in March 2023 that her dismissal was rooted in an interaction with administrators during which she and colleagues were instructed “to withhold information from parents” whenever they encountered a student who had begun identifying as a different gender.
“I said, `Are you asking me to lie?’ And they said, `Yes, it’s for students’ privacy,”’ the former Jurupa Valley High School teacher said. “It was just so bizarre to me, because you’re talking about minors. The decision-making portal of their brain is not fully developed. They need their parents at this time for everything.”
Tapia said she specifically ran afoul a district policy linked to Assembly Bill 1266, which was signed into law in 2014. The bill focused on “pupil rights,” expanding on Section 221.5 of the California Education Code regarding students’ participation in courses.
The thrust of AB 1266 was that a “pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”
There were no provisions written into the bill prohibiting educators from talking with parents about students’ gender choices. However, legal guidelines in a companion measure cited the California Public Records Act, Article 1, Section 1 of the state constitution and the federal Family Educational & Privacy Rights Act in establishing limits on what educators are permitted to disclose.
“This settlement serves as a reminder that religious freedom is protected, no matter your career,” Advocates for Faith & Freedom counsel Julianne Fleischer said. “If the district’s actions were legal, no teacher of faith would be qualified to serve as a public school teacher. Jessica’s story is one of faithful courage. She fought back to ensure her school district was held accountable and that no other teacher has to succumb to this type of discrimination.”
Tapia and Advocates for Faith & Freedom are launching a national campaign, “Teachers Don’t Lie,” to spotlight constitutional protections in the classroom.
Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Norco, took up Tapia’s cause last year, introducing AB 1314, which sought to clarify the necessity of parental rights in school districts’ policies statewide. It was tabled by the Committee on Education in January.
Essayli said there were already provisions in the education code asserting a “parent’s right to know” everything in connection to the welfare of his or her child, and AB 1314 would have reaffirmed that.
Earlier this month, the assemblyman noted that even though his legislative effort had run aground, the courtroom battles being waged by teachers had netted success, pointing to a case in U.S. District Court in San Diego.
During a hearing in late April on a federal civil rights lawsuit prompted by the dismissal of two Escondido Union School District teachers, state attorney Emmanuelle Soichet told Judge Roger Benitez that arguments indicating California Attorney General Rob Bonta might threaten legal action against the district for failure to enforce student gender identity privacy guidelines were misplaced.
“To answer your question about who has enforcement power over those guidelines — those are non-enforceable guidelines, so there’s no one in the state who’s actually going to enforce those guidelines,” Soichet told the court.
The prosecutor added that the privacy provision inferred from earlier legislation should not be interpreted as a “mandate of state law,” and it was an “incorrect assumption” to believe otherwise.
Essayli said that was a green light for “every California school district to immediately repeal any secrecy policies that were implemented as a result of the unenforceable guidelines illegally issued by the Department of Education.”