Bay Area school district sued by Christian parents over LGBTQ+ instruction

SAN JOSE, Calif. — The Sunnyvale School District, which serves nearly 6,000 students, was sued Monday by two Christian parents who claim the district failed to allow them to opt their elementary-age children out of LGBTQ+ instruction they say conflicts with their faith — the latest case to put Bay Area schools at the forefront of a national debate over parental rights and age-appropriate instruction.

“Our children are the most cherished part of our lives,” said plaintiffs Justin and Rose Taylor, residents of Sunnyvale and parents of four young children, in a statement Tuesday. “We know and love them best and should be the ones deciding when and how they learn about sensitive topics regarding sexuality and gender.”

The Taylors’ lawsuit claims Sunnyvale School District’s LGBTQ+ instruction “is clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

Specifically, the lawsuit calls out their children’s school — Cumberland Elementary School — for using picture books that encourage students to look for images they might find at a Pride parade, feature drag queens with facial hair, tell the story of two male fairytale characters who get married and highlight a child’s gender transition.

In their suit, the Taylors said those books, and their messaging, is “age-inappropriate and inconsistent with their religious beliefs, practices and child-raising philosophies,” and “that forcing their children to participate in Sunnyvale’s LGBTQ+ instruction will undermine their efforts to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm focused on protecting religious freedoms, filed the lawsuit Monday against the Sunnyvale School District, District Superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite, the district’s five board of education trustees, Cumberland Elementary School’s interim principal Shana Riehl and the district’s Director of Student Support Services Paul Slayton.

“The Taylors are fully for teaching values of civility and kindness and respect as schools have done that in various ways for centuries,” said Michael O’Brien, counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Taylors. “But these books and the instruction that goes along with it goes far beyond just teaching kindness and respect. It comes from a one-sided perspective geared toward very young, impressionable children.”

In a statement Tuesday, Slayton said the district remains committed to supporting all students and “maintaining constructive relationships” with all families.

“The district was surprised to learn that the Taylor family had filed a lawsuit, particularly given the positive and productive discussions that took place following the family’s initial concerns,” Slayton said. “We will continue to approach this matter with professionalism and care.”

The lawsuit comes as Bay Area schools have faced increasing national and statewide scrutiny over their handling of controversial curriculum, LGBTQ+ policies and parental rights.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice launched investigations into four California school districts, including San Francisco Unified School District and three districts in Monterey County, over instructional materials and policies related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Specifically, the investigation is focused on to what extent, the California school districts have notified parents of their right to opt their children out of such instruction.

San Francisco Unified School District’s superintendent, Maria Su, also faced hours of congressional questioning earlier this month over her district’s curriculum and policies related to gender identity and sexual orientation.

The Taylors’ lawsuit claims that in September, they requested the district provide them with advanced notice when any “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks or similar materials would be used and to excuse their children from those lessons, instructions and events, as well as be provided with “a neutral alternative activity” without academic penalty.

The Taylors cited the 2025 Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v Taylor, which ruled 6-3 that Maryland parents’ right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment was unduly burdened by the state’s failure to provide notice and opt out whenever LGBTQ+ storybooks were being read, to call attention to Sunnyvale School District’s “constitutional obligations.”

The lawsuit alleges that while Sunnyvale School District initially provided the Taylors with an opt-out form and directed school librarians not to “check out material that includes LGBTQ+ or Gender Identity material” to the Taylor children, the district abruptly reversed course in February, saying it would not grant opt-outs from LBGTQ+-inclusive curriculum or storybooks.

“Under California law, districts are required to provide inclusive instructional content that reflects the diversity of our community, including representation of LGBTQ+ individuals and families, as part of our core academic program,” Slayton told the family in a formal response earlier this year. “This content is not optional and is not subject to parent opt-out provisions.”

Slayton continued that the Supreme Court’s decision “addressed a specific set of facts in another state and does not create a general or automatic right for parents to opt their children out of required curriculum.”

The Taylors’ lawsuit alleges that the district’s denial of their opt-out request is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

O’Brien said the Taylors’ lawsuit is not focused on changing or removing Sunnyvale School District’s curriculum or instruction but merely allowing them to opt out of those lessons.

But Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said while curriculum must be age-appropriate, schools have a responsibility to expose students to a variety of opinions, people and experiences, including at a young age.

“Students have to be prepared to encounter a wide range of people in their lives,” he said. “A very important part of what schools do as part of their civic function is to help young people be prepared to navigate the world and interact with very diverse people and learn how to treat everyone fairly and respectfully.”

Minter said in general, parents don’t have the right to dictate curriculum or object to specific instructions their children are being taught except in very limited cases, like the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It would be sheer chaos if every parent had the ability to do that,” Minter said. “Schools wouldn’t be able to function.”

He said he hopes parents and schools will be able to resolve disputes outside of court to model democracy, especially as the Trump administration aims to “fan the flames and create as much conflict as possible” to eliminate any protections for LGBTQ people in the nation, especially in schools.

“Schools are in a tough spot right now trying to balance these competing interests,” Minter said. “I think we have a responsibility as advocates to encourage discussion and attempts to reach agreements and compromise on materials that would be inclusive and also comfortable for everyone.”