A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Skaneateles mother who claimed her constitutional rights were violated when her child was allowed to use a preferred name and pronouns at school without parental notification.
Jennifer Vitsaxaki filed the suit in January against the Skaneateles Central School District and its Board of Education, arguing the district’s policy permitting students to determine how and when to disclose gender identity to their families infringed on her religious liberty and parental rights.
The case centered on Vitsaxaki’s seventh-grade child, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, who asked to be referred to by a gender-neutral name and pronouns. The school honored the request, creating a “Gender Support Plan” and informing staff to use Doe’s chosen identity at school, while referring to Doe by the legal name when speaking to the family.
Vitsaxaki learned of the plan months later, prompting her to withdraw her child and file a federal lawsuit seeking damages and a declaration that the district’s policy was unconstitutional. She alleged violations of her rights under the Free Exercise Clause and Due Process Clause.
U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd disagreed, finding the policy neutral and generally applicable, and ruling it passed the rational basis test for constitutionality. The court noted that allowing students to be addressed by preferred pronouns fosters “a safe learning environment” and does not infringe on parental rights to dictate public school instruction.
The court also rejected Vitsaxaki’s claim that the district’s actions constituted medical treatment, stating there was no evidence the school diagnosed or treated her child, but merely offered counseling and support services.
In dismissing the procedural due process claim, the judge found Vitsaxaki failed to show a protected liberty interest was violated, ruling that the district’s non-disclosure did not constitute a constitutional deprivation.
Hurd concluded that because Vitsaxaki had withdrawn her child from the district and had no intention of re-enrolling, she lacked standing to pursue a claim for declaratory relief. The court ordered the case closed on March 20.