Judge Dismisses Maine Mom’s Lawsuit Against Damariscotta School for Allegedly Hiding Her Child’s Gender Transition

The United States District Court for the District of Maine has dismissed a Maine mother’s lawsuit against the Great Salt Bay Community School (GSBCS) Board for withholding information about her child’s gender transition.

District Court Judge Jon D. Levy released his decision this past Friday that the mother — Amber Lavigne — failed to state a claim because the facts provided in this case were insufficient to establish municipal liability.

Since the judge’s reasoning was based solely on Lavigne’s inability to show that the municipality could legally be found responsible for the alleged violations, he did not address the underlying constitutional questions associated with Lavigne’s claims.

In December of 2022, Lavigne discovered that a 26-year-old social worker by the name of Samuel Roy had given her 13-year-old child two breast binders — garments designed to conceal the appearance of a female’s breasts — and provided instructions on their use.

While chest binders are not classified as medical devices, there are a number of potential side effects and risks associated with wearing them.

Lavigne also said that she was not told when Roy and other school officials began to use an alternative name and pronoun set for her child, a fact that was subsequently denied by GSBCS officials.

[RELATED: Maine Mom Challenges Alleged Secret Public School Gender Transitions in Federal Court]

“It is understandable that a parent, such as Lavigne, might expect school officials to keep her informed about how her child is navigating matters related to gender identity at school,” Judge Levy wrote. “Her Complaint, however, fails to plead facts which would, if proven, establish municipal liability.”

To establish municipal liability for a deprivation of constitutional rights — as Lavigne sought to do in this case — one must demonstrate (1) that the harm was caused by a constitutional violation and (2) that the municipality is responsible for that violation.

The second of these two requirements can be satisfied in one of three ways — (1) the existence of an unwritten policy or custom, (2) ratification of behavior by someone with final policy-making authority, or (3) the failure of the municipality to properly train someone.

Since the judge found that the facts advanced by Lavigne were unable to check any of these boxes, he granted the GSBCS Board’s motion to dismiss without delving into the veracity of Lavigne’s constitutional allegations.

Central to Lavigne’s case was the argument that the GSBCS Board had adopted an unwritten Withholding Policy that was contrary to their formal Transgender Student Guidelines.

“The purported municipal ‘policy or custom’ that Lavigne challenges is somewhat nebulous,” the judge wrote. “The School Board emphasizes, and Lavigne does not dispute, that the Guidelines establish a procedure which calls for the participation of a transgender student’s parent(s) or guardian(s).”

Rather, Lavigne “expressly confirms in her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss that ‘the Guidelines are not the policy'” she sought to challenge. Instead, Lavigne was targeting an “unwritten Withholding Policy,” which she described as “a systematic across-the-board practice which is not specified, but is hinted at, in the written ‘Guidelines.'”

The judge noted that — besides arguing that the official Guidelines are “supplements” to the Withholding Policy and “permit the policy and practice of withholding/concealment” — Lavigne does not “otherwise address or explain how the Withholding Policy is hinted at in the Guidelines.”

Consequently, the judge explained that he could not allow Lavigne’s municipal liability claims to proceed on this basis.

Although this argument played a major role in Lavigne’s case, she also made an effort to demonstrate other forms of municipal liability as well.

Lavigne argued in her Complaint that the GSBCS Board is responsible for the alleged constitutional harm because they “ratified” the employees’ decision to withhold information from her regarding her child’s gender transition.

To support this claim, Lavigne cited several public statements made by the Board — as well as remarks allegedly made by the Superintendent — in which it was denied that there had been any policy violations.

Lavigne argued that these remarks were indicative that the school’s policy must have — in reality — been to withhold such information from parents and guardians, regardless of what is written in the Transgender Student Guidelines.

The Board, on the other hand, argued that “because ‘there is no allegation that [they] had any knowledge of a policy violation,’ no ratification occurred.”

Judge Levy ultimately leaned toward agreement with the Board’s interpretation, stating that “the superintendent’s alleged statement that no policy had been violated does not itself constitute an actionable policy from which municipal liability might flow because there are no facts pleaded in the Complaint which suggest that the superintendent possessed final policy-making authority for the municipality.”

“Further, the School Board’s written statement that neither it nor school administrators where aware of a violation of policy or law — without identifying any particular decision or decisions of a subordinate — does not, without more, plausibly show that the School Board ‘actively approved’ of ‘a subordinate’s decision and the basis for it’ such that municipal liability could follow,” the judge continued.

Lavigne also sought to establish municipal liability by arguing that even in the absence of an unwritten withholding policy, “its failure to train the School’s employees that the withholding of important information — such as a student’s use of chest binders and adoption of a new name and gender pronouns — from the student’s parents represents a failure to train.”

The judge goes on to explain, however, that a failure to train must constitute “deliberate indifference,” which can either be demonstrated through “a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees” or be “‘so obvious’ as to support a funding of deliberate indifference.'”

“The Complaint does not assert any facts about the actual training that school officials did or did not receive,” the judge wrote, “[and] is devoid of alleged facts which could plausibly show a pattern of constitutional violations by untrained staff members, or that the need to train staff members on ‘parental rights in the gender identity context’ was so obvious as to support a finding of deliberate indifference.”

Because the judge found that municipal liability could not be established by Lavigne through any of the three available channels, he decided to grant the GSBCS Board’s motion to dismiss the case.

According to the Bangor Daily News (BDN), Susan Weidner — an attorney representing GSBCS — said “there having been a lot of misinformation about what occurred in this case, we are pleased that, after the School District’s first opportunity to respond to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in court, the Court determined that there was no claim here.”

The BDN also reported that a spokesperson for the Goldwater Institute — which represented Lavigne in this case — said “we are reviewing the decision and determining next steps to best protect Amber’s constitutionally protected parental rights.”

Click Here to Read Judge Levy’s Full Decision