In a rare move, two amicus briefs were filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and 16 state attorneys general plus the District of Columbia in support of a Georgia teacher who was fired from a public school for reading a book with LGBTQ+ themes to her classroom.The DOJ and States involvement reflects the significant impact of this case on the future of public education across the country, the Southern Poverty Law Centers interim deputy legal director, Michael J. Tafelski, toldLGBTQ Nation. All students deserve the freedom to learn in schools where their identities are affirmed, and clearly the DOJ and states across the country agree. Related Teacher sues school district after she was fired for reading a book about accepting others The school said it was a controversial issue to talk about acceptance. The case is Rinderle v. Cobb County School District., a lawsuit filed in February of this year after fifth-grade teacher Katherine Rinderle was fired from Cobb County School District after reading the book My Shadow is Purple to her class at Due West Elementary School in March of 2023. The book was at the schools Scholastic Book Fair and is about a child who seeks acceptance for their gender nonconformity.Rinderly is suing under Title IX, the law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex in education. The Biden administration has interpreted this to include a ban on anti-LGBTQ+ education since its impossible to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people without taking sex into account. A teacher and student are also plaintiffs in the case that alleges her firing is indicative of a hostile environment rife with sex-based discrimination against gender-nonconforming people. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today The DOJ brief states that the United States takes no position on the merits of Plaintiffs Title IX claim, or on the accuracy of the allegations in support of that claim and instead wants the court to consider the effects of the schools policies on students.The DOJ argues that the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, which has jurisdiction in this case, has to evaluate the merit of the claims based on the totality of evidence, with particular focus on the schools policies. Moreover, the DOJ said that its interest in the case is that teachers who often possess unique and direct knowledge of discrimination experienced by students in their schools be able to speak out without facing retaliation.The school district invoked an interpretation of their Divisive Concepts policies that prohibit LGBTQ+ content in the classroom. An email from a parent who complained about the book-reading said that anything in the genre of LGBTQ and queer' counts as divisive. The principal forwarded that email to the districts central office, and Rinderle was suspended several days later and fired a few months after that.The DOJ argues that the defendants claim that Title IX doesnt apply because this is a case of LGBTQ+ discrimination. In response, the DOJ references the Department of Education, Supreme Court, and three court of appeals decisions in backing the legitimacy of citing Title IX for LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination policies.They additionally cited allegations of anti-LGBTQ+ bullying and harassment within the school district, which the DOJ believes the school policies have enabled. The brief concludes, Therefore, in assessing for purposes of Rinderles Title IX retaliation claim whether the Complaint plausibly alleges that she reasonably and in good faith believed that a hostile environment based on sex existed for LGBTQ and gender nonconforming students, this Court should consider, as part of the totality of the circumstances, the alleged effects of the Districts interpretation and enforcement of its Divisive Concepts Policies.The states and D.C.s brief includes the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. They all state that the school districts policies censoring LGBTQ+ content, dubbed censorship policies, are of unusual characterunique in its breadth and failure to meaningfully advance legitimate pedagogical goalsprovides an additional indication that the policies are constitutionally suspect.The core argument of the brief is that the policies within the school district harm LGBTQ+ youth. The brief cites research on the matter. They argue that the states represented in the amicus brief have more legitimate educational policies as they serve to protect LGBTQ+ youth with the aim of furthering their education.Amici States also recognize the indisputable fact that LGBTQ people are part of American life and therefore include LGBTQ experiences and contributions in history and social studies education, the states write. By statute, seven Amici States have promulgated history or social studies curricular requirements relating to LGBTQ Americans. Other Amici States have undertaken similar efforts to update curricular standards to include LGBTQ people.The research they draw from, which includes data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a systemic review from Cornell University, the Michigan Department of Education, and a GLSEN research survey, among other publications, suggests that LGBTQ+ youth are more likely to be bullied than their cisgender and heterosexual peers, which leads to more negative mental health effects in the population. They conclude by arguing that the amicus brief states may need to spend additional costs addressing the potential negative effects from Georgia due to an influx of LGBTQ+ youth and their families moving to their states.The briefs are in opposition to the defendants Cobb County School District, the districts superintendent, the county Board of Education, and Chris Dowd, a former Atlanta Police Department officer and current employee of the district who was sued for acting unlawfully in a raid on a gay bar in 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by the Goodmark Law Firm, the Law Offices of Gerry Weber, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Education Association and the Southern Education Foundation.