Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint

Case 3:22-cv-00083-TJC-JBT Document 43 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 60 PageID 401
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
(JACKSONVILLE DIVISION)
Wendell Perez, individually and )

as next friend of A.P., a minor )
Maria Perez, individually and )
as next friend of A.P, a minor, )
)
Plaintiffs ) Case No. 3:22-cv-0083-TJC-JBT
v. )
Clay County School Board, )
David Broskie, Superintendent of )
Clay County District Schools, in his )
Official and individual capacities, )
Destiney Washington, counselor )
at Paterson Elementary School, in her )
individual capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

AND DAMAGES
Plaintiffs, Wendell Perez, individually and as next friend of A.P., a minor, and
Maria Perez, individually and as next friend of A.P, a minor (“Plaintiffs”), by and
through counsel, file this civil action and respectfully request this Court to issue a
declaratory judgment and award damages for violations of the United States
Constitution and Florida Statutes by Defendants, Clay County School Board, David
Broskie, and Destiney Washington.
In support thereof, Plaintiffs state:
1
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs Wendell and Maria Perez, acting on behalf of themselves and
their daughter, A.P., bring this action to vindicate their fundamental rights as
enumerated in the United States Constitution and rights protected under Florida
Statutes.
2. Through implementation of a protocol and practice of concealing
information from parents related to their children’s gender identity, Defendants
exceeded the bounds of legitimate pedagogical concerns and violated Mr. and Mrs.
Perez’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing of and make medical and mental
health decisions for A.P. Defendants’ actions also violated Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s
and A.P.’s fundamental right to preserve familial privacy.
3. Defendants’ protocol and practice of concealing information from
parents and conduct in promoting a false male identity in A.P. have also violated the
Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s, as well as A.P.’s, fundamental First Amendment rights to free
exercise of religion.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking redress of
injuries suffered by Plaintiffs from deprivation, under color of state law, of rights
secured by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution,
2
laws of the United States, and the laws of Florida. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).
5. 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 Clay County, Florida, which is situated within the district and
divisional boundaries of the Middle District of Florida. Venue is also proper in this
Court because the Defendants reside or have their principal place of business in this
District.
6. 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.
7. An actual controversy exists between the parties involving substantial
constitutional issues, in that Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ policies, procedures,
protocols or directives and actions taken in accordance with them, as applied, violate
the United States Constitution and have infringed Plaintiffs’ rights, while
Defendants allege that their policies, procedures, protocols or directives and
associated actions do not violate the United States Constitution.
8. This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief regarding
costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
3
PARTIES
9. Plaintiffs Wendell and Maria Perez, and their daughter, A.P., are
residents of Clay County, Florida.
10. Plaintiffs’ daughter, A.P. was a student at Paterson Elementary School,
which is part of Clay County District Schools, at all times relevant to the Complaint.
11. Mr. and Mrs. Perez and their daughter, A.P., are practicing Roman
Catholics who live their lives in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs.
Their sincerely held beliefs are based on Scripture, Church teachings, natural law
and objective truth, including that human beings are created male and female, which
cannot be changed, and that children are to respect their parents and other adult
authority figures.
12. Defendant Clay County School Board is the governing body for public
schools in Clay County, Florida, with the authority to sue and be sued, and was at
all times material acting under color of law.
13. Defendant David Broskie (“Mr. Broskie”) is the Superintendent of Clay
County District Schools (“District”), having been elected by the citizens of Clay
County pursuant to Article IX, § 5 of the Florida Constitution.
14. As Superintendent, Mr. Broskie is the executive officer of the School
Board, tasked with implementing and enforcing School District policies set out by
the School Board, as well as supervising and disciplining employees under Fla. Stat.
4
§ 1001.33. He nominates candidates for District positions to the School Board which
then votes on whether to hire the individuals. He is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
15. Defendant Destiney Washington (“Mrs. Washington”) is a School
Counselor at Paterson Elementary School, which is part of Clay County District
Schools. She is sued in her individual capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.P.’s Experiences at Paterson Elementary
16. Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s and A.P.’s sincerely held religious beliefs were
known to District staff when A.P. was enrolled in Clay County District Schools.
17. During the 2021-2022 school year A.P. was 12 years old and a sixth
grader at Paterson Elementary School.
18. Beginning early in the fall of 2021, at the beginning of the 2021-2022
academic year A.P. was being bullied by her peers for being too “boyish,” e.g., liking
the outdoors, playing video games, and interacting with male peers.
19. A.P.’s peers did not like her behavior, believed that she was seeking
attention, and taunted and harassed her throughout the school day and on the bus.
A.P. reported the bullying to District staff, including the bus driver, but it continued
unabated.
5
20. A.P. began feeling conflicted about her sex. She knew she was a girl,
but wanted to be like a boy, believing she would not be bullied if she were perceived
as “strong” like a boy.
21. A.P. had heard the word “transgender” from a friend and read about it
on the internet. She wondered if she could be transgender so that she could be seen
as a boy and not get bullied.
22. A.P. was also having difficulty with her classes. She asked a teacher for
help but did not receive any.
23. In October 2021, A.P. was still being bullied even after notifying school
staff. She was distressed by the bullying and was looking through internet postings
about self-harm. School staff found out about the searches and A.P. was interviewed
by school counselor Mandy Sad.
24. Mrs. Sad contacted Mr. Perez. Mr. Perez told Mrs. Sad that he and Mrs.
Perez would address the issue with A.P. and seek private advice and counseling as
they deemed appropriate.
25. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, A.P. was instructed to meet with Mrs.
Washington. A.P. was told that she was going to meet weekly with Mrs. Washington
but was not told why she was meeting with her.
6
26. Mr. and Mrs. Perez were not notified about the weekly sessions with
Ms. Washington put in place after they notified the District that they were exercising
their rights as parents to make the decision regarding counseling for their daughter.
27. A.P. was still feeling conflicted about her sex and how to make the
bullying stop when she went to see Mrs. Washington.
28. A.P. saw rainbow posters with the word “safe space” on the walls of
Mrs. Washington’s office and asked Mrs. Washington if she supported transgender
people. Mrs. Washington replied, “All these rainbows aren’t here for no reason.”
29. A.P. asked Mrs. Washington if she could “be a boy.” Mrs. Washington
did not ask what A.P. meant or inquire about her feelings.
30. A.P. knew that she could not become a boy. However, in asking the
question of Mrs. Washington, A.P. wondered if she could be seen as a boy or like a
boy so that the bullying would stop.
31. Mrs. Washington answered “yes” to A.P.’s question about becoming a
boy and immediately asked A.P. for a boy name. A.P. gave Mrs. Washington the
name “M.”
32. Beginning with that first meeting and continuing throughout the fall
semester, Mrs. Washington consistently called A.P. “M.” instead of “A.” and treated
her as if she were a boy when interacting with her. A.P. had not requested to be
referred to by that name. A.P. did not correct Mrs. Washington because A.P. knew
7
that she was supposed to respect Mrs. Washington as an adult authority figure and
correction would be viewed as being disrespectful.
33. A.P. was still working through her feelings and had not told her parents.
Mrs. Washington asked A.P. if her parents knew about the male name and boy
identity. A.P. said they did not and said that the family was Roman Catholic.
34. A.P. did not ask Mrs. Washington to not tell her parents, but Mrs.
Washington promised that she would not tell them. This created a conflict for A.P.
between respecting her parents and respecting Mrs. Washington as Mrs.
Washington’s promise would mean that they would be keeping secrets from her
parents.
35. As well as discussing transgender issues, Mrs. Washington shared
intimate details regarding her life with A.P., such as about Ms. Washington
becoming engaged and information about her fiancé, which made A.P.
uncomfortable. Mrs. Washington did not inquire about or address the difficulties
A.P. was having academically or the ongoing bullying problem that A.P. had shared
with her.
36. During one session, Mrs. Washington asked A.P. what she had done
over the weekend. When A.P. responded that she had played video games and gone
to church, Mrs. Washington told A.P. that the last time she (Mrs. Washington) went
to church she was kicked out because her skirt was really, really short.
8
37. A.P. was disturbed by the conversation. She was already feeling
conflicted because Mrs. Washington, an adult authority figure, was treating her as a
boy named “M.” when A.P. knew she was a girl. The revelation regarding Mrs.
Washington being kicked out of church for inappropriate dress exacerbated A.P.’s
distress. A.P. did not know if she was supposed to visualize Mrs. Washington in a
too-short skirt as a girl or as if she was a boy as Mrs. Washington communicated.
38. A.P. was also disturbed because she believed Mrs. Washington was
expressing disapproval of church teachings regarding modesty and thereby telling
A.P. that it was acceptable to question church teachings and her parents’ instruction
in accordance with those teachings.
39. A.P. did not tell anyone else at Paterson Elementary, students or staff,
about the name “M” or about her conflict regarding her sex. A.P. did not tell anyone
that she identified as or wanted to be treated as a boy.
40. A.P. did not consent to Mrs. Washington telling anyone about the male
name “M.” and Mrs. Washington did not ask A.P. for permission to speak to others
about it.
41. A.P. mentioned to Mrs. Washington that a teacher had said in passing
that she could not use anything but a child’s legal name without contacting parents.
Mrs. Washington told A.P. “not to worry,” that she (Mrs. Washington) would see to
9
it that all of A.P.’s teachers call her “M” and he/him. She said, “I don’t know when
it will happen, but it will happen.”
42. A.P. was distressed by Mrs. Washington’s promise because she did not
want to be publicly addressed that way and had not asked or given permission for
Mrs. Washington to share this information.
43. One day while A.P. was walking toward the bus with her classmates
she waved at Mrs. Washington and Mrs. Washington called back “Hi M.” A.P.’s
classmates heard the false male name and the bullying intensified once the
classmates told others about the exchange.
44. A.P. told Mrs. Washington that the bullying had intensified after Mrs.
Washington used the name “M” in front of classmates without A.P.’s permission.
Mrs. Washington said she was sorry but did not, to A.P.’s knowledge, report the
bullying, take actions to see that it stopped, inform or involve A.P.’s parents.
45. A.P. later repeated to Mrs. Washington that she was having increased
bullying problems because of Mrs. Washington’s unconsented use of the alternate
male name in front of A.P.’s peers. Mrs. Washington merely said that things are hard
sometimes.
46. A.P. became increasingly distressed as she continued to meet with Mrs.
Washington and be treated as a boy. She feared that Mrs. Washington might try to
make further unauthorized disclosures to A.P.’s peers or teachers.
10
47. A.P. felt coerced into continuing with the secret male identity with Mrs.
Washington and the people whom Mrs. Washington told. Once Mrs. Washington
impermissibly disclosed the male name to A.P.’s peers it was impossible for A.P. to
stop others from using the male name. To attempt to do so would require publicly
telling others that she did not want to be treated as a boy named “M,” which would
further exacerbate the peer harassment that District staff had already failed to address
or inform her parents about.
48. A.P. became increasingly distressed about being coerced into living a
secret double life. A.P. felt that Mrs. Washington had total control over A.P.’s life
at school and that A.P. had no recourse to enduring the distress caused by the secrecy
and increasing bullying that Mrs. Washington refused to address.
49. Mrs. Washington continued to promote A.P. as a boy named “M.”
without her permission and without notifying Mr. and Mrs. Perez. This included
signing A.P. up as a boy for a “shop with a cop” event and telling her she could shop
with the boys while using the male name “M.” These “shop with a cop” events are
held to benefit economically disadvantaged students, which A.P. was clearly not.
Mrs. Washington told A.P. that she chose her for this event because she was her
favorite student.
11
50. By the end of the fall semester the unaddressed bullying, unresolved
academic issues, and distress caused by Mrs. Washington’s continuing promotion of
A.P. as a boy named “M,” became overwhelming for A.P.
51. During Christmas break when she was away from school, A.P. felt safe
at home with her family. At home, away from school, she was not compelled to live
a double life, keep secrets, endure bullying or wonder what Mrs. Washington might
do next to compel A.P. to continue living with a false male identity at school with
those whom Mrs. Washington had, without permission, shared the information.
52. As Christmas break was ending, despair and a feeling of being
overwhelmed set in as A.P. realized she would have to return to school where she
would be under the control of Mrs. Washington, harassed and bullied by classmates,
and compelled to live a double life.
53. A.P. determined that she could no longer endure and decided to take
her own life.
54. On January 4, 2022, the first day back at school, A.P. attempted to hang
herself in a bathroom stall using a string but stopped because it was painful. She
tried again in the morning on January 5, 2022, using a different cord but the restroom
was busy, so she resolved to try again at lunch time.
12
55. Before she could, she was confronted by school Principal John O’Brian,
Assistant Principal Courtney Schumacher, and Mrs. Washington and taken to the
school office.
56. A.P. was interrogated by school staff without her parents present. Mr.
O’Brian and Mrs. Schumacher had been informed about A.P. being referred to as a
boy named “M,” but Mr. and Mrs. Perez had still not been contacted.
57. Mr. O’Brian and Mrs. Schumacher asked A.P. if Mrs. Washington’s
actions in treating A.P. as a boy named “M” had anything to do with her attempting
suicide. A.P. said that it did. Nevertheless, Mr. O’Brian and Mrs. Schumacher
continued to refer to A.P. as a boy named “M.”
58. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Perez received a call from Mrs. Washington, who
up to that time had never communicated with the Perezes about their daughter being
subjected to bullying or the gender identity issue. Mrs. Washington identified herself
as a school counselor at Paterson Elementary School and told Mr. and Mrs. Perez
that they needed to come to the school right away, “It’s about A.” Mrs. Washington
would not provide any further information.
59. Mr. and Mrs. Perez arrived at the school and were required to wait in
the lobby for several minutes without receiving any information about their
daughter.
13
60. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Perez were escorted into a room with Mrs.
Washington, Mr. O’Brian, Mrs. Schumacher, and a Clay County Schools Police
officer. A.P. was in a separate office sitting with a stranger filling out a survey.
61. Mr. and Mrs. Perez were told that A.P. had tried to commit suicide by
hanging herself in the school restroom and was being involuntarily committed to a
psychiatric hospital under the Baker Act.
62. Having heard nothing from Mrs. Washington or anyone else at the
District that A.P. had been bullied, identified as a boy by Mrs. Washington, and
subject to private counseling sessions with Mrs. Washington during which
transgender issues were discussed, Mr. and Mrs. Perez were shocked by this
revelation.
63. When the Perezes asked why this happened, Mrs. Washington
responded, “Because of her gender identity issue.” Mrs. Washington claimed that
A.P. wanted to be referred to as a male named “M.” (contrary to the actual
conversation with A.P.) and that her parents would not be in agreement with these
changes because of their Catholic beliefs.
64. Mrs. Washington thereby affirmed her understanding that the Perez
family adhered to sincerely held religious beliefs that were incompatible with a girl
being falsely identified as a male with a male name.
14
65. Mr. Perez stated that this was the first he had heard about A.P. having
any issue with her sex, since he had heard nothing from the school and A.P. had not
spoken about or exhibited any signs of gender confusion at home.
66. In fact, just before the incident A.P. had told her mother that she
believed that people who say they are transgender have a problem with their minds
because “if you’re a boy, you’re a boy, if you’re a girl, you’re a girl.”
67. At the meeting on January 5, 2022, Mrs. Washington told Mr. and Mrs.
Perez for the first time that she had been meeting privately with A.P. on a weekly
basis during which time Defendant Washington discussed transgender issues.
68. During the January 5, 2022 meeting, 12-year-old A.P. was only able to
briefly see her parents before being placed alone in the back of a police car and
driven to the hospital. She was scared when she was forced to travel with the police
and be admitted to the hospital without her parents.
69. At the January 5, 2022 meeting, Mrs. Schumacher told Mr. and Mrs.
Perez that school officials were “not required” to tell the parents about the meetings
with their 12-year-old daughter related to her questions about her sex and being
treated as a boy with a male name. Mrs. Schumacher claimed that “confidentiality
issues” prohibited District personnel from notifying parents regarding their
children’s questions or conflicts about their sex and wanting to identify as something
other than their sex.
15
70. Plaintiffs understood Mrs. Schumacher’s comment that school officials
were “not required” to tell parents about the private meetings with Mrs. Washington
to mean that the District had a policy such that District staff had been instructed to
not notify parents about information related to their children’s well-being, i.e.,
conflicts about sex or gender identity.
71. Mrs. Schumacher’s statements about “confidentiality issues” contradict
published information on Clay County Schools’ Webpage. A document entitled
“Understanding Confidentiality” is addressed to parents of children receiving
counseling at school. A true and correct copy of the “Understanding Confidentiality”
document is attached to this Complaint, marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in full.
72. The “Understanding Confidentiality” document specifically states:
Children seen in individual sessions (except under certain conditions)

are not legally entitled to confidentiality (also called privilege); their
parents have this right. However, unless children feel they have some
privacy in speaking with a counselor, the benefits of therapy may be
lost. Therefore, it is necessary to work out an arrangement in which
children feel that their privacy is generally being respected, at the same
time that parents have access to critical information. This agreement
must have the understanding and approval of the parents or other
responsible adults and of the child in therapy.
Exhibit A, p. 1 (emphases added).
16
73. Mr. and Mrs. Perez were never even informed that their daughter was
being seen in individual sessions with Mrs. Washington, let alone given the chance
to reach an agreement regarding confidentiality as required in the document.
74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the
“confidentiality issues” Mrs. Schumacher alluded to were part of a District
legislative policy action sanctioned by the School Board and implemented by Mr.
Broskie that directs District staff that parents are not to be told when their child
asserts a discordant gender identity and are identified as something other than their
sex at school, including with alternate names and pronouns, unless the child
approves of the transmission of the information to their parents. (“De Facto Policy”).
75. At the meeting on January 5, 2022, Mr. Perez made it clear that as
practicing Roman Catholics he and Mrs. Perez did not consent to their daughter
being treated as a male, changing A.P.’s name, identity, and pronouns, and that such
actions are directly contrary to biological reality and the family’s religious beliefs
which permeate all of their lives.
76. On January 10, 2022, Mr. Perez had a phone conversation with Mrs.
Washington. She said that she did not see anything wrong with calling A.P. “M.”
She also said she did not see anything wrong with not telling Mr. and Mrs. Perez
because, Mrs. Washington claimed falsely, A.P. asked her not to say anything. Mr.
Perez specifically asked Mrs. Washington to give him the reason for the lack of
17
parental notification. Mrs. Washington said she needed to call back with someone
from the administration, signaling that she was operating pursuant to the De Facto
Policy and needed further guidance from Mr. Broskie or others.
77. On January 14, 2022, Mr. Perez met with Mrs. Schumacher and asked
her about the lack of parental notification about the meetings and the unauthorized
interactions with A.P. using a false male name and pronouns. Mrs. Schumacher
repeated her earlier statement that “confidentiality issues” prevented District staff
from notifying Mr. and Mrs. Perez.
78. Mrs. Schumacher thus twice confirmed in conversations with Mr. Perez
the existence of the De Facto Policy that required that District staff not notify parents
about their children’s gender identity issues unless the child authorizes it.
79. A.P. continued to be the subject of bullying and harassment even after
being released from the hospital and placed on homebound study. On January 21,
2022, Mr. Perez went to Paterson Elementary to pick up A.P.’s schoolwork. On top
of one of the binders containing A.P.’s schoolwork was a note: “cheer up you
beautiful loser.” Mr. Perez asked Mr. O’Brian to investigate the harassing note. Mr.
O’Brian replied that no school employees who handled the binder saw the note.
80. Although she remained an enrolled student at Paterson Elementary
while on hospital homebound, A.P. was intentionally excluded from her sixth-grade
promotion ceremony. She was not properly informed of the procedures to sign up
18
for the ceremony. At the ceremony, which the Perez family viewed online, A.P.’s
name was not read as one of the students being promoted nor listed as a student who
qualified for an Elite award. Defendants’ actions in intentionally excluding A.P.
from the promotion ceremony or even mentioning her as a graduate caused A.P.
further distress.
School Board Policies and Parents’ Bills of Rights
81. On November 8, 2008, the School Board enacted Policy 1.11 (“Anti-
Bullying Policy”) which addresses bullying and harassment and prescribes
procedures for addressing instances of bullying, such as that being endured by A.P.
A true and correct copy of the Anti-Bullying Policy as amended in 2019 is attached
to this Complaint, marked as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference.
82. The Anti-Bullying Policy prohibits bullying and harassment, inter alia,
during any educational program or activity conducted by the School Board; during
any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity and when in route to
school aboard a school bus or at a school bus stop.
83. The Anti-Bullying Policy requires all District faculty and staff to report
any allegations of bullying or violations of the policy to the appropriate District
administrators and encourages students to report allegations of bullying or
harassment to appropriate administrators. (Exhibit B, p. 5, Sections E2 and E3).
19
84. The Anti-Bullying Policy requires that reports of bullying or
harassment be investigated by administrative staff and, in accordance with
requirements from the Florida Department of Education, that parents of the parties
involved be notified within 24 hours of the report. (Exhibit B, p. 7 Section F4).
85. A.P. reported incidents of bullying at the beginning of the 2021-2022
school year to the school bus driver and to Mrs. Washington.
86. On more than one occasion, A.P. reported to Mrs. Washington
additional incidents of bullying resulting from Mrs. Washington’s unauthorized
disclosure of the false male name to A.P.’s peers.
87. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Mrs. Washington did not report
the allegations of bullying A.P. disclosed to her. If they were reported, no
investigation was made as required by the Anti-Bullying Policy.
88. Mr. and Mrs. Perez did not receive any notification of any reports of
bullying as required under the Anti-Bullying Policy related to the instances of
bullying reported by A.P. to Mrs. Washington and the school bus driver.
89. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants School Board
and/or Mr. Broskie failed to properly supervise and train District employees
regarding the requirements of reporting of bullying or harassment so that District
employees permitted bullying reported by A.P. to continue without consequences
and without notification to Mr. and Mrs. Perez.
20
90. As a result of Defendants’ failure to supervise and train District
employees and Mrs. Washington’s failure to comply with the Anti-Bullying Policy,
Mr. and Mrs. Perez were deprived of critical information regarding their daughter’s
mental health and well-being before A.P. became so overwhelmed that she
attempted suicide.
91. The Parents’ Bill of Rights, HB 241, became law in Florida on July 1,
2021. The Parents’ Bill of Rights was in full force and effect at all times relevant to
the allegations of this Complaint.
92. The Parents’ Bill of Rights reserves all parental rights, including the
rights to direct education, upbringing, moral or religious training, and to make health
care decisions for minor children to their parents “without obstruction or interference
from the state, any of its political subdivisions, any other governmental entity, or
any other institution.” Florida Statutes § 1014.04.
93. The Parents’ Bill of Rights prescribes that “important information
relating to a minor child should not be withheld, either inadvertently or purposefully,
from his or her parent, including information relating to the minor child’s health,
well-being, and education, while the minor child is in the custody of the school
district.” Florida Statutes § 1014.02.
21
94. Florida Statutes § 1014.02 further provides that “it is necessary to
establish a consistent mechanism for parents to be notified of information relating to
the health and well-being of their minor children.”
95. Florida Statutes § 1014.03 provides:
The state, any of its political subdivisions, any other governmental

entity, or any other institution may not infringe on the fundamental
rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and
mental health of his or her minor child without demonstrating that such
action is reasonable and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
and that such action is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by
a less restrictive means.
96. The Parents’ Bill of Rights, therefore, incorporates the judicial strict
scrutiny test for constitutional challenges to violations of fundamental rights.
97. Defendant School Board, a political subdivision of the state subject to
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, failed to enact a formal policy or other “consistent
mechanism” to notify parents of information relating to the health and well-being of
their minor children in 2021 as required by the law. Instead, Plaintiffs are informed
and believe that school administrators, with the knowledge and approval of the
School Board, developed and implemented the De Facto Policy as a districtwide
directive which proscribed notice to parents unless children approve.
98. At a School Board meeting on June 21, 2022, the District’s legal
counsel confirmed that the Board had not adopted a formal policy pursuant to the
Parents’ Bill of Rights up to that time but had been following protocols and
22
procedures present throughout the District’s policies and procedures. Plaintiffs are
informed and believe that those policies and procedures included the De Facto
Policy.
99. At the June 21, 2022 meeting, the Board discussed adoption of a policy
in response to the Parents’ Bill of Rights in Education, which became effective on
July 1, 2022 and requires additional notification and other policies to protect parental
rights. The School Board’s counsel said that the notice required under the 2021
Parents’ Bill of Rights was incorporated into the new Policy (“2022 Policy”). The
2022 Policy, Section 1.15, was formally adopted by the School Board on August 4,
2022. A true and correct copy of the 2022 Policy is attached to this Complaint,
marked as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference.
100. Section 1.15D incorporates the De facto Policy’s provision that parents
are not to be notified if their child does not approve:
D. Nothing contained in this Policy or in procedures drafted to

implement this Policy, shall require any School District personnel to
inform a parent of communications between a student and school
personnel if it is determined:
1. That the student, after being encouraged to discuss issues relating to

his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of
the issue with the parent, indicates an unwillingness or outright refusal
to enter into discussion with his/her parents concerning those matters
about which the student communicated with School District personnel,
and
2. That there is no change in the student’s services or monitoring related

to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being and
23
the school’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning

environment for the student.
Section 1.15D1’s exception to parental notification when a child is unwilling is not
an enumerated exception to the parental notification required by Florida Statutes
§1014.02 and the 2022 Parents’ Bill of Rights in Education.
101. Section 1.15D2’s provision regarding change in a student’s services or
monitoring does not contain definitional standards to cabin administrator discretion.
Therefore the 2022 Policy permits District personnel to continue implementing the
De Facto Policy when a child refuses to approve of notifying his or her parents and
administrators simply assert that there is no change in the student’s services or
monitoring.
102. Consequently, Defendant School Board has failed to enact a policy that
requires that parents be notified of information relating to the health and well-being
of their minor children regardless of the child’s approves as required by Florida law
and the United States Constitution.
103. Florida Statutes §1008.363(3) provides:
Beginning with the 2021-2022 school year, any student

identification card issued by a public school to students in grades
6 through 12 must include the telephone numbers for national or
statewide crisis and suicide hotlines and text lines.
104. Defendants School Board and Broskie failed to enact procedures or
directives to implement the requirements of Section 1008.363(3) and/or failed to
24
train and supervise District staff to ensure compliance with Section 1008.363(3), in
that A.P.’s student identification card issued for the 2021-2022 school year, her sixth
grade year, did not contain the required notifications regarding crisis and suicide
prevention hotlines and text lines. As a result, A.P was deprived of critical
information which, if available to her, she could have utilized to seek help instead
of attempting suicide.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive Due Process Fundamental Parental Right
to Direct the Upbringing of Their Child under the U.S. Constitution)
(By Mr. and Mrs. Perez individually Against all Defendants)
105. Plaintiffs incorporate the factual allegations in Paragraphs 16-104 by
reference as if set forth in full.
106. The Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions
concerning the care, custody, and control of their children as part of directing the
education and upbringing of their children. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510
(1925); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68 (2000). This right was recognized as
fundamental for many years before Defendants engaged in the conduct that is the
subject of this action. It was also memorialized in Florida Statutes as of July 1, 2021.
107. The Due Process fundamental right of parents to make decisions
concerning the care, custody, and control of their children includes the fundamental
25
right to direct the medical and mental health decision-making for their children.
Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia
County, 880 F.2d 305 (11th Cir. 1989). This right was recognized as fundamental in
the Eleventh Circuit, including Leon County, Florida, for many years before
Defendants engaged in the conduct that is the subject of this action. It was also
memorialized in Florida Statutes as of July 1, 2021.
Actions by Defendant School Board
108. Defendant School Board violated Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s fundamental
constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child, including to make mental
health care decisions, by knowingly and intentionally failing to enact a policy
requiring that parents like Mr. and Mrs. Perez be notified of information relating to
the health and well-being of their minor children, like A.P.’s conflicts regarding her
sex and issues with bullying, regardless of whether the children approve, as also
required by Florida’s parental rights laws.
constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child, including the right to make
mental health care decisions, by knowingly and intentionally failing to train and
supervise District staff on the requirements under the Constitution and Florida law
that information related to the health and well-being of minor children must not be
concealed from the child’s parents.
26
110. Defendant School Board’s failure to properly train and supervise
District staff in the requirements of parental notification exhibits deliberate
indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs enumerated in the United States Constitution
and Florida’s parental rights laws, in that parents will be, and in Plaintiffs’ case have
been, denied their right to direct the upbringing of their child and direct decisions
concerning her mental health and well-being with regard to A.P.’s conflicts about
her sex and issues with bullying.
mental health care decisions, by sanctioning the development and implementation
of the De Facto Policy which directed District staff to conceal from parents
information related to their children’s health and well-being, including in Plaintiffs’
case, their daughters’ conflicts regarding her sex, unless the minor child approves.
mental health care decisions, by knowingly failing to train and supervise District
staff that confidentiality laws do not authorize withholding information regarding
the health and well-being of their minor children like A.P. from their fit parents.
113. The acts and omissions of Defendant School Board violated Mr. and
Mrs. Perez’s fundamental parental rights by depriving Mr. and Mrs. Perez of their
27
right to be informed of what was taking place with their child concerning a serious
personal and mental health issue and of their right to determine and provide A.P. the
mental health care and assistance she needed before she became suicidal.
Actions by Defendant Broskie
114. Defendant Broskie violated Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s fundamental
supervise District staff on the requirements under the Constitution and Florida law
that information related to the health and well-being of minor children must not be
concealed from parents. As a result, information related to the health and well-being
of A.P. was concealed from Mr. and Mrs. Perez.
115. On information and belief, Defendant Broskie violated Mr. and Mrs.
Perez’s fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child,
including the right to make mental health care decisions, by sanctioning
development of and overseeing implementation of the De Facto Policy which
directed District staff to conceal from parents, including Mr. and Mrs. Perez,
information related to their children’s health and well-being, including in Plaintiffs’
case, their daughters’ conflicts regarding her sex, unless the minor child approves.
116. Defendant Broskie violated Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s fundamental
28
supervise District staff that confidentiality laws do not authorize withholding
information concerning minor children like A.P. from their fit parents.
117. The acts and omissions of Defendant Broskie violated Mr. and Mrs.
Perez’s fundamental parental rights by depriving Mr. and Mrs. Perez of their right
to be informed of what was taking place with their child concerning a serious
personal and mental health issue and of their right to determine and provide A.P. the
mental health care and assistance she needed before she became suicidal.
Actions by Defendant Washington
118. Defendant Washington violated Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to direct
the upbringing of their daughter, including making mental health decisions, when,
without notice to or the consent of Mr. and Mrs. Perez, she initiated weekly private
meetings with A.P. during which Mrs. Washington addressed mental health issues,
created and promoted a false male identity for A.P., and promised to conceal the
meetings and false male identity information from A.P.’s parents in contravention
of the Constitution and Florida law.
119. Defendant Washington violated Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to direct
the upbringing of their daughter, including making mental health decisions, when,
in violation of District policy, she failed to report incidents of bullying reported by
A.P., especially after Mrs. Washington impermissibly disclosed the male name she
29
was privately using for A.P. to A.P.’s peers, and failed to inform Mr. and Mrs. Perez
of the incidents.
120. As a result of Ms. Washington’s actions, Plaintiffs were denied
information they needed to make decisions regarding their daughter’s mental health
and well-being before she became suicidal.
Allegations regarding all Defendants
121. Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected fundamental right to direct the
upbringing of their child, including the right to make medical and mental health
decisions, was violated as the plainly obvious consequence of Defendants
substituting their judgment for the judgment of A.P.’s fit parents by, inter alia, a)
failing to implement a parental notification policy as required under Florida law; b)
failing to train and supervise District staff regarding parental notification
requirements; c) directing District staff that students are entitled to confidentiality
even toward their parents when they raise issues related to gender identity; d)
meeting surreptitiously with A.P. to discuss mental health issues; e) withholding
mental health information regarding A.P. from Mr. and Mrs. Perez; and taking or
failing to take other actions of which Plaintiffs are presently unaware.
122. Defendants cannot assert a compelling interest for disregarding
Plaintiffs’ long-established fundamental constitutional right, confirmed by Florida
30
law, to direct the upbringing, care, and education of their children, and Defendants’
prohibition against parental notification is not narrowly tailored.
123. Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights
has caused Plaintiffs undue hardship.
Prayer for Relief:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
1. A declaration that Defendants School Board and Broskie violated
Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights as parents to direct the upbringing of their child under
the United States Constitution as set forth in Paragraphs 108-117.
2. A declaration that Defendant Washington violated Plaintiffs’
fundamental rights as parents to direct the upbringing of their child under the United
States Constitution as set forth in Paragraphs 118-120
3. For nominal damages;
4. For compensatory damages according to proof for the injuries caused
by Defendants’ acts and omissions, including a) emotional distress, b) ongoing
emotional and psychological damage to A.P. requiring therapeutic interventions to
rebuild the trust between A.P. and her parents which was damaged by the actions of
Defendants, c) ongoing emotional and psychological damage to the family dynamic,
requiring therapeutic interventions to rebuild trust between parents and child which
31
was damaged by the actions of Defendants, d) ongoing damage for loss of
educational opportunities, e) and damages for other injuries as proven at trial;
5. For attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
6. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive Due Process Right to Familial Privacy
Under the U.S. Constitution)
(By Mr. and Mrs. Perez individually Against All Defendants)
124. Plaintiffs incorporate the factual allegations in paragraphs 16-104 by
States Constitution protects the sanctity of the family as an institution deeply rooted
in this Nation's history and tradition, through which moral and cultural values are
passed down to children. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-504 (1977).
The Constitution protects the private realm of the family from interference by the
state. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Arnold v. Board of
Education of Escambia County, 880 F.2d 305 (11th Cir. 1989). This right was well
established by Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent at the time of the
Defendants’ conduct as alleged.
126. The protected right of familial privacy includes the right of parents, free
from state interference, to teach their children values and standards which the parents
32
deem desirable and to counter influences on children the parents find inimical to
their religious beliefs or the values they wish instilled in their children. Arnold v.
Board of Education of Escambia County, 880 F.2d 305, 313 (11th Cir. 1989).
Actions by the School Board That Interfered with Familial Privacy
127. Defendant School Board interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s
fundamental constitutional right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of
their family by intentionally failing to enact a policy requiring that parents be
notified of information relating to the health and well-being of their minor children
regardless of whether the children approve.
their family by purposefully and intentionally failing to supervise and train District
staff on the requirements under the United States Constitution and Florida law that
information related to the health and well-being of minor children must not be
concealed from parents.
their family by sanctioning development and implementation of the De Facto Policy
which directed District staff to conceal from parents information related to their
33
children’s health and well-being, including a child’s gender identity, unless the
minor child approves.
their family by failing to supervise and train District staff that confidentiality laws
do not authorize withholding important information concerning a minor child from
their fit parents.
131. By failing to enact a parental notification policy, failing to properly
supervise and train District staff concerning the need to share information related to
the health and well-being of minor children with their parents, and sanctioning the
De Facto Policy, the School Board interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s right to
teach their daughter important values and standards they deem desirable and counter
undesirable influences by preventing them from receiving information necessary for
them to exercise that right with regard to A.P.’s conflicts regarding gender identity
and bullying issues.
Actions by Defendant Broskie that Interfered with Familial Privacy
132. Defendant Broskie interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s fundamental
constitutional right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of their family
by failing to supervise and train District staff on the requirements under the
34
Constitution and Florida law that information related to the health and well-being of
minor children must not be concealed from parents.
constitutional right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of their family
by sanctioning development of and overseeing implementation of the De Facto
Policy which directed District staff to conceal from parents information related to
their children’s health and well-being, including a child’s gender identity, unless the
minor child approves.
constitutional right to familial privacy by failing to supervise and train District staff
that confidentiality laws do not authorize withholding information concerning minor
children from their fit parents.
135. By sanctioning development and overseeing implementation of the De
Facto Policy, and failing to properly supervise and train District staff concerning
the need to share information related to the health and well-being of minor children
with their parents, Mr. Broskie interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s right to teach
their daughter important values and standards they deem desirable and counter
35
Actions by Defendant Washington that Interfered with Familial Privacy
136. Defendant Washington interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s
fundamental right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of their family
when, without notice to or the consent of Mr. and Mrs. Perez, she initiated weekly
private meetings with A.P. during which Mrs. Washington addressed mental health
issues, created and promoted a false male identity for A.P., and promised to conceal
the meetings and gender identity information from Mr. and Mrs. Perez. Mrs.
Washington’s actions interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s right to teach their
daughter important values and standards they deem desirable and counter
137. Defendant Washington interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s
fundamental right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of their family
when, in violation of District policy, she failed to report incidents of bullying
reported by A.P., especially after Mrs. Washington impermissibly disclosed the male
name she was using for A.P. to A.P.’s peers, and failed to inform Mr. and Mrs. Perez
of the incidents. Mrs. Washington’s actions interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s
right to teach their daughter important values and standards they deem desirable and
counter undesirable influences by preventing them from receiving information
36
necessary for them to exercise that right with regard to A.P.’s conflicts regarding
gender identity and bullying issues.
138. Defendants cannot assert a compelling state interest for disregarding
requirements for establishing procedures for parental notification, failing to train
and/or supervise employees regarding parental notification and bullying response,
and developing the De Facto Policy that violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to
familial privacy. Defendants’ prohibitions against parental notification and
unauthorized involvement in children’s mental health decisions related to gender
identity are not narrowly tailored.
139. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard for the
rights of Mr. and Mrs. Perez and A.P. to familial privacy without state interference,
Defendants’ obligations under the District Bullying Policy and the requirements of
the Parents’ Bill of Rights led to A.P. being coerced into keeping secrets and living
a double life to the point of attempting suicide twice on school property, causing
permanent injury to A.P. and damage to the familial relationship between A.P. and
her parents.
Prayer for Relief:
37
A. A declaration that the School Board and Mr. Broskie have interfered
with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s rights to familial privacy under the United States
Constitution as set forth in Paragraphs 127-135.
B. A declaration that Mrs. Washington has interfered with Mr. and Mrs.
Perez’s rights to familial privacy under the United States Constitution as set forth in
Paragraphs 136-137.
C. For nominal damages.
D. For compensatory damages according to proof for the injuries caused
rebuild the trust between her and her parents which was damaged by the actions of
educational opportunities, and other injuries as proven at trial.
E. For attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
F. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.
38
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive Due Process Right to Familial Privacy
(By Mr. and Mrs. Perez on behalf of A.P. Against All Defendants)
140. Plaintiffs incorporate the factual allegations in paragraphs 16-104 by
States Constitution protects the sanctity of the family as an institution deeply rooted
in this Nation's history and tradition, through which moral and cultural values are
passed down to children. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-04 (1977).
The Constitution protects the private realm of the family from interference by the
state. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Arnold v. Board of
Education of Escambia County, 880 F.2d 305, 313 (11th Cir. 1989). This right was
well established by Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent at the time of the
Defendants’ conduct as alleged.
142. The protected right of familial privacy includes the right of parents to,
free from state interference, teach their children and their children to be taught by
their parents, values and standards which the parents deem desirable and to counter
influences on children the parents find inimical to their religious beliefs or the values
they wish instilled in their children. Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia
County, 880 F.2d 305, 313 (11th Cir. 1989).
39
Actions by the School Board That Interfered with Familial Privacy
143. Defendant School Board interfered with A.P.’s fundamental
constitutional right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of her family
by failing to enact a policy requiring that parents be notified of information relating
to the health and well-being of their minor children as also required by Florida’s
Parents’ Bill of Rights.
by failing to supervise and train District staff that the United States Constitution and
Florida law proscribe concealing from parents information related to the health and
well-being of their minor children.
by sanctioning development and implementation of the De Facto Policy which
directed District staff to conceal from parents information related to their children’s
health and well-being, including a child’s gender identity, unless the minor child
approves.
40
by failing to supervise and train District staff that confidentiality laws do not
authorize withholding information concerning minor children from their fit parents.
147. By failing to enact the required parental notification policy, failing to
appropriately supervise and train District staff concerning the need to share
information related to the health and well-being of minor children with their parents,
and sanctioning development and implementation of the De Facto Policy, Defendant
School Board interfered with A.P.’s fundamental constitutional right to familial
privacy and invaded the private realm of her family by preventing A.P. from
receiving from her parents assistance regarding A.P.’s conflicts about her sex and
how to address bullying issues based on the values and standards her parents deem
desirable. A.P. was also deprived of her right to receive teaching from her parents
regarding how to use the family’s shared values to counter undesirable influences
related to A.P.’s conflicts about her sex and how to address bullying.
Actions by Defendant Broskie that Interfered with Familial Privacy
148. Defendant Broskie interfered with A.P.’s fundamental constitutional
right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of her family by failing to
supervise and train District staff on the requirements under the Constitution and
Florida law that information related to the health and well-being of minor children
must not be concealed from parents.
41
right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of her family by sanctioning
development of and overseeing implementation of the De Facto Policy which
directed District staff to conceal from parents information related to their children’s
health and well-being, including a child’s gender identity, unless the minor child
approves.
right to familial privacy and invaded the private realm of her family by failing to
train or supervise District staff that confidentiality laws do not authorize withholding
information concerning minor children from their fit parents.
151. By failing to supervise and train District staff concerning the need to
share information related to the health and well-being of minor children with parents
and sanctioning development and implementation of the De Facto Policy, Defendant
Broskie interfered with A.P.’s fundamental constitutional right to familial privacy
and invaded the private realm of her family by preventing A.P. from receiving from
her parents assistance regarding A.P.’s conflicts about her sex and how to address
bullying issues based on the values and standards her parents deem desirable. A.P.
was also deprived of her right to receive teaching from her parents regarding how to
use the family’s shared values to counter undesirable influences related to A.P.’s
conflict about her sex and how to address bullying.
42
Actions by Defendant Washington that Interfered with Familial Privacy
152. Defendant Washington interfered with A.P.’s right to familial privacy
and invaded the private realm of her family when, she initiated weekly private
meetings with A.P. during which Mrs. Washington addressed mental health issues,
created and promoted a false male identity for A.P., and promised to conceal the
meetings and gender identity information from A.P.’s parents.
153. Mrs. Washington’s actions prevented A.P. from receiving from her
parents assistance regarding A.P.’s conflicts about her sex based on the values and
standards her parents deem desirable. A.P. was also deprived of her right to receive
teaching from her parents regarding how to use the family’s shared values to counter
undesirable influences related to A.P.’s conflicts about her sex.
154. Defendant Washington interfered with A.P.’s fundamental right to
familial privacy and invaded the private realm of her family when, in violation of
District policy, she failed to report incidents of bullying reported by A.P., especially
after Mrs. Washington impermissibly disclosed the false male name she was using
for A.P. to A.P.’s peers and failed to inform Mr. and Mrs. Perez of the incidents.
155. Mrs. Washington’s actions interfered with A.P.’s fundamental right to
familial privacy and invaded the private realm of her family by preventing A.P. from
receiving from her parents assistance regarding A.P.’s distress over how to address
bullying issues based on the values and standards her parents deem desirable. A.P.
43
was also deprived of her right to receive assistance from her parents regarding how
to use the family’s shared values to counter undesirable influences related to A.P.’s
distress over how to address bullying.
156. Defendants cannot assert a compelling state interest for disregarding
requirements for establishing procedures for parental notification, failing to train
and/or supervise employees regarding parental notification and bullying response,
and developing the De Facto Policy that violate A.P.’s constitutional right to familial
privacy. Defendants’ prohibitions against parental notification and unauthorized
involvement in children’s mental health decisions related to gender identity are not
narrowly tailored.
157. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard for the
rights of A.P. to familial privacy without state interference, Defendants’ obligations
under the District Bullying Policy and the requirements of the Parents’ Bill of Rights
led to A.P. being coerced into keeping secrets and living a double life to the point of
attempting suicide twice on school property, causing permanent injury to A.P. and
damage to the familial relationship between A.P. and her parents.
Prayer for Relief:
44
A. A declaration that the School Board and Mr. Broskie have interfered
with A.P.’s right to familial privacy under the United States Constitution as set forth
in Paragraphs 143-151
B. A declaration that Mrs. Washington has interfered with A.P.’s right to
familial privacy under the United States Constitution as set forth in Paragraphs 152-
155.
C. For nominal damages.
D. For compensatory damages according to proof for the injuries caused
E. For attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
F. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.
45
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Free Exercise of Religion
(By Mr. and Mrs. Perez individually Against Defendant Washington)
158. Plaintiffs incorporate the factual allegations of paragraphs 16-104 by
159. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits
Defendant from abridging Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s right to free exercise of religion.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993);
Cambridge Christian Sch. v. Fla. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n 942 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir.
2019). This right was well-established in Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit
precedent at the time of the actions related in this Complaint.
160. Mr. and Mrs. Perez are practicing Roman Catholics whose faith informs
all of their lives. They have sincerely held religious beliefs that include: 1) human
beings are created male or female and the natural created order regarding human
sexual identity cannot be changed; 2) all people are to be treated with compassion,
which includes refraining from misrepresenting an individual’s natural biological
and created identity as either a male or a female; 3) individuals are to speak the
truth, including speaking the truth regarding matters of sexual identity as a male or
female; 4) Children are to respect their parents and other adult authority figures; 5)
46
Parents have the non-delegable duty to introduce and teach their children about
issues related to sexual identity and personal relationships.
161. Mrs. Washington was aware of the family’s sincerely held religious
beliefs and that treating their daughter as a boy and untruthfully using a male name
and pronouns would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
162. Mrs. Washington’s concealment of, inter alia, her secret meetings with
A.P., discussion of mental health issues, treating A.P. as a boy named “M,”
promising secrecy, impliedly approving of rebelling against Biblical, Church and
parental teachings, and ignoring bullying being suffered by A.P. prevented Mr. and
Mrs. Perez from acting pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs by denying
them the information they needed to counsel A.P. regarding conflicts about her sex
and responding to the bullying in a manner consistent with their faith.
163. Mrs. Washington’s actions also significantly burdened Mr. and Mrs.
Perez’s sincerely held religious beliefs by preventing them from acting pursuant to
their religious beliefs that it is the parents who have the duty to train their children
regarding human sexual identity and the unchangeable natural created order of
humans as male and female. Mrs. Washington’s adherence to the De Facto Policy
of concealing information from parents meant that Mrs. Washington introduced A.P.
to issues regarding human sexuality and the idea that the concepts of male and
female are changeable. Mr. and Mrs. Perez were, therefore, denied the ability to use
47
faith-informed principles to introduce A.P. to the subject of human sexuality and
counter undesirable influences presented to A.P. at school leading to gender
confusion and significant emotional distress.
164. Defendant’s actions have caused a direct and immediate conflict with
Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s religious beliefs by preventing Mr. and Mrs. Perez from being
informed of the mental health issues A.P. was experiencing and seeking counseling
and guidance for A.P. in a manner that is consistent with the beliefs held by Mr. and
Mrs. Perez and by A.P. herself before A.P. became suicidal.
165. Defendant’s actions are neither neutral nor generally applicable, but
rather specifically and discriminatorily target the religious beliefs and viewpoint of
Mr. and Mrs. Perez and thus expressly constitute a substantial burden on sincerely
held religious beliefs that are contrary to Defendant’s viewpoint regarding the nature
of the created order.
166. No compelling state interest justifies the burdens Defendant imposed
on Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s rights to the free exercise of religion.
167. Defendant’s actions are not the least restrictive means to accomplish
any permissible government purpose Defendant seeks to serve.
168. Defendant’s violation of Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s rights to free exercise of
religion has caused Mr. and Mrs. Perez to suffer undue and actual hardships.
48
169. Defendant’s violation of Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s rights to free exercise of
religion has caused Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable injury. Plaintiffs have no adequate
remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of their most cherished
constitutional liberties.
Prayer for Relief
A. A declaration that Defendant has violated Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s rights
to free exercise of religion under the United States Constitution as set forth in
Paragraphs 159-169.
B. For nominal damages.
C. For compensatory damages according to proof for the injuries caused
by Defendant’s acts and omissions, including a) emotional distress, b) ongoing
Defendant, c) ongoing emotional and psychological damage to the family dynamic,
was damaged by the actions of Defendant, d) ongoing damage for loss of educational
opportunities, and other injuries as proven at trial.
D. For attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
E. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.
49
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Free Exercise of Religion
(By Mr. and Mrs. Perez on behalf of A.P. Against Defendant
Washington)
171. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits
Defendant from abridging A.P.’s right to free exercise of religion. Church of the
Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993); Cambridge Christian
Sch. v. Fla. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n 942 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2019). This right was
well-established in Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent at the time of the
actions related in this Complaint.
172. A.P. has sincerely held religious beliefs that include: 1) human beings
are created male or female and that the natural created order regarding human
sexuality cannot be changed; 2) people are to speak the truth, including speaking the
truth regarding matters of sexual identity as a male or female and 3) as a child she is
to respect her parents and other adult authority figures.
173. Mrs. Washington was aware that A.P. was Catholic. Ms. Washington
was aware that treating A.P. as a boy and using a false name would conflict with
A.P.’s, as well as her family’s, sincerely held religious beliefs. Nevertheless, she
50
initiated and persisted in treating A.P. as a boy and using a false male name. Because
Mrs. Washington is an adult authority figure who A.P. believes must be respected,
her actions coerced A.P. to participate in a lie about her identity, a lie that
contradicted her sincerely held religious belief that human beings are created male
and female, which cannot change.
174. Mrs. Washington’s actions in promising, without a prompting from
A.P., that she would not tell A.P.’s parents about the private meetings and her
treatment of A.P. as a boy with a male name substantially burdened A.P.’s free
exercise of her sincerely held religious beliefs. Mrs. Washington’s actions
communicated to A.P. that she need not respect her parents’ authority or seek their
permission to make consequential decisions, which violates A.P.’s beliefs that
children are to respect their parents’ decisions regarding the child’s health and well-
being.
175. Mrs. Washington’s actions in sharing details regarding her experience
of getting kicked out of church for inappropriate attire substantially burdened A.P.’s
free exercise of her sincerely held religious beliefs by transmitting a message from
an adult authority figure that church teachings on issues like modesty can be
disregarded contrary to A.P.’s belief that her parents must be respected.
176. Mrs. Washington’s actions also significantly burdened A.P.’s sincerely
held religious beliefs by preventing her from acting on her belief that she must abide
51
by church teachings and respect Mrs. Washington as an adult authority figure by
creating an irreconcilable conflict between her church teaching concerning the
unchanging created order of human sexuality as male and female and Mrs.
Washington’s message that identity as a male or female is changeable according to
an individual’s perceptions.
177. Defendant’s actions are neither neutral nor generally applicable, but
rather specifically and discriminatorily target the religious beliefs and viewpoint of
A.P. and thus expressly constitute a substantial burden on A.P.’s ability to exercise
and act on her sincerely held religious beliefs.
178. No compelling state interest justifies the burdens Defendant imposed
on A.P.’s rights to the free exercise of religion.
179. Defendant’s actions are not the least restrictive means to accomplish
any permissible government purpose Defendant seeks to serve.
180. Defendant’s violation of A.P.’s rights to free exercise of religion has
caused A.P. to suffer undue and actual hardships.
181. Defendant’s violation of A.P.’s right to free exercise of religion has
caused A.P. to suffer irreparable injury. A.P. has no adequate remedy at law to
correct the continuing deprivation of her most cherished constitutional liberties.
Prayer for Relief
52
A. A declaration that Mrs. Washington has violated A.P.’s right to free
exercise of religion under the United States Constitution as set forth in Paragraphs
173-181.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Procedural Due Process Rights
(By Mr. and Mrs. Perez individually Against Defendants School Board and
Broskie)
53
183. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against
government action that impairs constitutional rights without adequate procedural
safeguards. Procedural due process forbids the government from depriving Plaintiffs
of their constitutional rights except through some individualized process. The Due
Process Clause requires the government to consider the significance of Plaintiffs’
private interest, the risk that the government’s procedures might erroneously deprive
Plaintiffs of that interest, the extent to which different procedures might reduce that
risk, and the government’s reason, if any, for employing alternative methods of
protecting Plaintiffs’ rights. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Schultz v.
Alabama, 42 F.4th 1298 (11th Cir. 2022).
184. Defendants’ De Facto Policy by design includes no mechanism
allowing Mr. and Mrs. Perez to receive notice of, let alone consent to, the District’s
decisions to meet secretly with A.P., to treat A.P as a boy using a false male name,
and take other actions to promote a false male identity for A.P., all of which interfere
with Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s fundamental constitutional rights. The 2022 Policy
regarding parental notification still fails to provide for notice to parents if their child
refuses to discuss gender identity or similar issues with their parents, demonstrating
that Defendants have failed to consider the significance of Plaintiffs’ fundamental
constitutional rights.
54
185. Defendants’ actions have deprived Mr. and Mrs. Perez of their
fundamental constitutional rights to 1) direct the upbringing, including making
mental health decisions, for their daughter, 2) maintain familial privacy without
interference from the state, and 3) freely exercise their sincerely held religious
beliefs without providing any notice, let alone the particularized process required
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
186. Alternative actions by Defendants, e.g.,1) enacting a parental
notification policy that does not have an exception for minor children who refuse to
speak to their parents and 2) supervising and training District staff that
confidentiality laws as well as the Constitution and Florida parental rights laws
require that parents be notified of issues related to their children’s health and well-
being regardless of the child’s wishes, would diminish if not eliminate the
deprivation of Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights.
187. Defendants have not offered a legally sufficient reason for failing to
provide such measures or alternatives that would ensure the protection of the
Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights.
Prayer for Relief:
55
A. A declaration that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ right to
procedural due process under the United States Constitution as set forth in
Paragraphs 184-187.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Parents’ Bill of Rights, Florida Statutes, Chapter 1014)
(By Mr. and Mrs. Perez individually Against Defendant School Board)
189. Effective July 1, 2021, The Parents’ Bill of Rights reserves all parental
rights, including the rights to direct the education, upbringing, moral and religious
56
training and to make health care decisions for their minor children to parents
“without obstruction or interference from the state, any of its political subdivisions,
any other governmental entity, or any other institution.” Florida Statutes § 1014.04.
190. Clay County School Board is a political subdivision of the state subject
to the provisions of the Parents’ Bill of Rights.
191. Defendant has obstructed and interfered with Plaintiffs’ fundamental
parental rights and infringed on the fundamental rights of Plaintiffs to direct the
education, upbringing, and moral or religious training and to make health care
decisions for their minor child by 1) addressing mental health issues with A.P.
without the knowledge or consent of Mr. and Mrs. Perez, and 2) withholding
information regarding A.P.’s conflicts about her sex, the resulting increase in
bullying she was subjected to, and the deterioration of her mental health to the point
of becoming suicidal.
192. Defendant School Board failed to comply with the requirements of the
Parents’ Bill of Rights by failing to enact policies and procedures for parental notice
and for notifying students of crisis and suicide prevention resources, which resulted
in harm to Plaintiffs.
193. Defendant acted with knowledge of the requirements of the Parents’
Bill of Rights when they withheld information from Mr. and Mrs. Perez that is
required to be provided under the law, obstructed Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s exercise of
57
the right to direct the education and upbringing of their daughter, interfered with
medical and mental health decision making and obstructed the free exercise of the
family’s religion.
194. Defendants cannot assert a compelling interest for violating Florida
law, disregarding Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing, care, and
education of their child. Defendant’s prohibitions against parental notification are
not narrowly tailored.
195. Defendant’s violation of the Parents’ Bill of Rights has caused harm to
Plaintiffs.
A. A declaration that Defendant has violated Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights
as parents, under the Florida Parents’ Bill of Rights as set forth in Paragraphs 191-
194.
58
D. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.
Dated: May 31, 2023.
/s/Mary E. McAlister
Mary E. McAlister (FL Bar No. 0010168)
CHILD & PARENTAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, INC.
P.O. Box 637
Monroe, VA 24574
770.448.4525
mmcalister@childparentrights.org
Vernadette R. Broyles (GA Bar No. 593026)*

Ernest G. Trakas (MO Bar 33813)*
CHILD & PARENTAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, INC.
5805 State Bridge Rd., Suite G310
Johns Creek, GA 30097
770.448.4525
vbroyles@childparentrights.org
etrakas@childparentrights.org
*admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
59
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 31st day of May, 2023, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was electronically filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to
all counsel of record.
/s/ Mary E. McAlister

MARY E. MCALISTER
60

Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:22-cv-00083-TJC-JBT Document 43 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 60 PageID 401

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Wendell Perez, individually and )

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Broskie, and Destiney Washington.

In support thereof, Plaintiffs state:

1. Plaintiffs Wendell and Maria Perez, acting on behalf of themselves and

2. Through implementation of a protocol and practice of concealing

information from parents related to their children’s gender identity, Defendants

and A.P.’s fundamental right to preserve familial privacy.

3. Defendants’ protocol and practice of concealing information from

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking redress of

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and other

6. 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.

7. An actual controversy exists between the parties involving substantial

constitutional issues, in that Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ policies, procedures,

Defendants allege that their policies, procedures, protocols or directives and

associated actions do not violate the United States Constitution.

8. This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief regarding

costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

residents of Clay County, Florida.

10. Plaintiffs’ daughter, A.P. was a student at Paterson Elementary School,

all times material acting under color of law.

13. Defendant David Broskie (“Mr. Broskie”) is the Superintendent of Clay

County pursuant to Article IX, § 5 of the Florida Constitution.

14. As Superintendent, Mr. Broskie is the executive officer of the School

15. Defendant Destiney Washington (“Mrs. Washington”) is a School

Counselor at Paterson Elementary School, which is part of Clay County District

Schools. She is sued in her individual capacity.

A.P.’s Experiences at Paterson Elementary

grader at Paterson Elementary School.

as “strong” like a boy.

as a boy and not get bullied.

help but did not receive any.

by school counselor Mandy Sad.

they deemed appropriate.

bullying stop when she went to see Mrs. Washington.

boy so that the bullying would stop.

31. Mrs. Washington answered “yes” to A.P.’s question about becoming a

correction would be viewed as being disrespectful.

between respecting her parents and respecting Mrs. Washington as Mrs.

35. As well as discussing transgender issues, Mrs. Washington shared

too-short skirt as a girl or as if she was a boy as Mrs. Washington communicated.

expressing disapproval of church teachings regarding modesty and thereby telling

in accordance with those teachings.

that she identified as or wanted to be treated as a boy.

it will happen, but it will happen.”

Mrs. Washington to share this information.

classmates told others about the exchange.

bullying problems because of Mrs. Washington’s unconsented use of the alternate

make further unauthorized disclosures to A.P.’s peers or teachers.

or inform her parents about.

and increasing bullying that Mrs. Washington refused to address.

49. Mrs. Washington continued to promote A.P. as a boy named “M.”

academic issues, and distress caused by Mrs. Washington’s continuing promotion of