The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday to uphold the lower court’s dismissal of a Maine mom’s lawsuit against the Great Salt Bay Community School (GSBCS) Board for allegedly withholding information from her about her child’s gender transition.
In May of last year, District Court Judge Jon D. Levy found 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 then 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.
Later that month, Lavigne appealed this dismissal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Monday’s ruling to uphold the dismissal could represent the end of the line for Lavigne’s case unless it is successfully appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
In their consideration of Lavigne’s case, the First Circuit explored whether or not the district court had “correctly determined that the Board could not be held liable for the alleged constitutional violations.”
“Municipalities cannot be held liable for the conduct of their employees unless the municipality itself is also responsible in some way for the conduct,” the Circuit Court said in its opinion.
It goes on to explain that a municipality can only be held liable if the injury caused by their employee is done in the court of carrying out the government’s “policy or custom” or if the municipality is the “moving force” behind the injury.
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.
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.
Lavigne argued that this Withholding Policy was “a systematic across-the-board practice which is not specified, but is hinted at, in the written ‘Guidelines.’”
She also argued that the GSBCS Board ought to be found responsible for the alleged constitutional harm because they “ratified” the employees’ decision to withhold information from her regarding her child’s gender transition.
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 — worn implements that are 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.
According to the Circuit Court, Lavigne’s assertions “fail[ed] to plausibly show that either the board had a policy of withholding or that the Board later ratified the individual defendants’ decisions to withhold information from Lavigne.”
The Circuit Court further outlines how Lavigne suggested in her appeal that the lower court erred in failing to consider the allegations of constitutional violations, asserting that she did not identify any legal precedent for requiring court’s to consider a case’s constitutional question first in a municipal liability case. They then point out that their understanding of case law suggests that the opposite is true.
Because of this, the Circuit Court only explored the second aspect of municipal liability, first tackling the question of whether or not there was a “policy or custom” of withholding information from parents regarding their children’s gender.
“But the phrase ‘information and belief’ does not excuse ‘pure speculation,'” the Circuit Court argued, suggesting that Lavigne’s interpretation of the municipality’s approach to informing parents about their children’s gender is not founded in evidence.
Similarly, the Circuit Court rejected Lavigne’s contention that the municipality ratified the defendants’ choice to withhold information from her about her child’s gender.
According to the Circuit Court, ratification must be active, not passive, in order for it to court toward the establishment of municipal liability. Based on their interpretation of the evidence, the GSBCS Board made only a “vague statement” regarding Roy’s alleged conduct in which they did not “[express] approval for any of the alleged conduct of any reasoning behind it.”
They also argued that their decision to renew Roy’s contract is not sufficient to show “active approval of Roy’s alleged conduct with respect to [Lavigne and her child].”
Based on this analysis, the Circuit Court opted to affirm the lower court’s decision and dismiss Lavigne’s case against the Great Salt Bay Community School (GSBCS) Board.
The only remaining course of appeal for Lavigne’s lawsuit would be a successful petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
