A Lexington parent filed a complaint on Oct. 17 against Lexington’s school district and some of its leaders, alleging they stalled on his requests to opt his child out of lessons that normalize LGBTQ+ relationships and burdened his right to direct the religious upbringing of his child.
“Our primary goal in this lawsuit is to ensure that Lexington Public Schools respects our client’s right to opt his five-year-old son out of storybooks that directly undermine his family’s Christian religious beliefs,” Sam Whiting, plaintiffs’ attorney from the Massachusetts Family Institute, told the Observer. “We hope that this case will put all Massachusetts public school districts on notice that they should not push controversial ideologies on children while flouting parental rights.”
The LPS parent, who is referenced as “Alan L.” in the complaint, and his son, who is referenced as “J.L.,” are represented by The American Center for Law and Justice and the Massachusetts Family Institute, two conservative organizations that advocate for religious liberty.
Alan L. is suing LPS; Lexington’s School Committee; LPS Superintendent Julie Hackett; Gerardo Martinez, the principal of Joseph Estabrook Elementary School; and Andrea So, LPS’s director of elementary education. The complaint alleges those parties are responsible for overseeing curricula, enforcing school policies, and managing opt-out requests.
LexObserver asked Hackett for comment on the complaint, but she declined.
Alan L. is a devout Christian and holds a biblical view of marriage, gender, and sexuality, the complaint states. He believes there are two genders (male and female) and sexuality is only to be expressed between one man and one woman. His religious beliefs require that he, not the state, shape the moral and spiritual formation of his child exclusively from a Christain worldview, the complaint states.
Before the 2025 to 2026 school year began, Alan L. asked Caroline Chestna, J.L.’s kindergarten teacher, if he could review the health and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) lessons J.L. would be taught this year because he worried they might contradict his religious beliefs.
Alan L. received some general information from Chestna, but ultimately went back and forth with So for most of September, asking for J.L. to be removed from health and DEI lessons, the complaint states. So told Alan L. a few times that his requests were too broad to accommodate. Alan L. filed public records requests seeking detailed information. The complaint states he didn’t receive those public records by the ten-day deadline.
On Sept. 19, Alan L. received links to the health curriculum from So. That’s when Alan L. learned that, as he was working to opt J.L. out of certain material, J.L. had already attended lessons that “normalized and promoted LGBTQ relationships.” He and his classmates had listened to a read-aloud of the book, “Families, Families, Families!” by Suzanne Lang, which shows two roosters and their chicks, reading “some children have two dads,” and “whatever it might be, if you love each other, then you are family.” The complaint argues the book includes messages that suggest all family arrangements are equally morally acceptable, which is a message that goes against what Alan L. wants his son to learn.
J.L. was shown another book called “All are Welcome Here” by Alexandra Penfold, which includes an illustration of a pregnant woman walking with another woman, which could imply they are in a lesbian relationship. Showing J.L. those books goes against Alan L.’s request that his son not be shown any material that normalizes LGBTQ+ relationships, the complaint states.
The district invited Alan L. to review curricula in-person on Sept. 23 and noted that lessons are subject to change. He identified which lessons he would like to opt J.L. out of. But “defendants refuse[d] to commit to providing plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to opt out of the content he has identified” and are “continuing to place the burden on plaintiff to identify each specific lesson or material he objects to, without giving him the means to do so,” the complaint states.
All Massachusetts public schools are required to allow parents to opt out of any curriculum that primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues (this is usually the sex education talk students are given in high school, for example). The opt-out allowance under that law does not extend to lessons in other classes, such as English or history for example, that aren’t specifically about sex education.
It has long been the state’s general practice to deny opt-out requests related to material that doesn’t explicitly regard sex-education. In a 2023 memo about Lexington’s DEI curriculum, Hackett wrote that “The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education…explains that activities and materials designed to promote tolerance and respect for individuals, including recognition of differences in sexual orientation ‘without further instruction on the physical and sexual implications’ do not trigger the notice and opt-out provisions.”
Alan L.’s complaint references a more recent precedent, however.
The June 2025 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Mahmoud v. Taylor) affirmed that parents have the right, under the First Amendment, to opt their children out of instruction that is not part of a formal sex-education program that interferes with their right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.
Alan L.’s complaint alleges Defendants are in violation of his and J.L.’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion, Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process, Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, the state right to free exercise of religion, the state right to direct the upbringing and religious education of his child, and the state civil rights act.
By denying Alan L.’s opt-out requests because they weren’t detailed enough, but also not providing Alan L. with syllabi with necessary details before lessons were given, the district infringed on Alan L.’s right to due process, the complaint claims.
And by showing J.L. material that normalizes LGBTQ+ relationships, the district burdened Alan L.’s right to freedom of religion and his right to direct the religious upbringing of his child, the complaint reads.
Alan L. has subsequently had to do “damage control” by discussing these issues with J.L. at an earlier age than he wanted to, which compromises J.L.’s innocence, the complaint states. Alan L. will now have to work to convince J.L. that his beliefs, not the school’s, are correct. He may also have to send his child to private school because he now lacks trust in LPS, the complaint alleges.
Alan L. is seeking declaration that defendants have violated plaintiffs rights, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, coverage of attorneys’ fees, and any further relief the court deems just.
The American Center for Law and Justice was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson to defend religious rights and is now led by Jay Sekulow, a leading advocate for religious rights who served as President Donald Trump’s lawyer during his first impeachment trial. The Massachusetts Family Institute is described on their website as “faith-based, pro-family advocacy organization providing legal support, research, and education on critical issues impacting the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and family values.”
Thank you for reporting this straight up. It is about time for LPS to respect the rights of parents, and it is reassuring that the US Supreme Court has ruled that opt-out is a First Amendment right. Grooming children is wrong, starting in kindergarten is outrageous. Good luck to Alan L., may his family prevail.
Hey David!
Please note that many LHS children have parents and guardians who are in Same Sex relationships.
This type of policy not only alienates the district’s queer students and families but also involuntarily robs children of their ability to gain essential perspectives of the real world and their peers.
Please familiarize yourself with the difference between awareness and grooming.
There have been hundreds of same sex couples within the LPS student body since its inception. Scaling back on these types of curriculum doesn’t help our community; rather, it fosters ignorance and creates a hostile environment where hatred is tolerated.
Starting in 2005, two Lexington families provoked a Federal court case involving almost identical issues. (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-1st-circuit/1387902.html) They objected on religious grounds to the schools’ diversity and inclusion curricula and sued everyone involved in governance of Lexington Public Schools, including Superintendent Bill Hurley, curriculum managers, and all members of the School Committee, including me.
The case made it to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which denied the plantiff’s claims of Constitutional protection and said they should follow the political process to get relief if their opinions and beliefs were offended. The plaintiffs’ claims had been refuted at multiple levels, and they did not appeal to the Supreme Court.
I’ll add that, if we think about it, there are many aspects of school curricula that are not controlled by local political opinions. There may be towns where a majority believes the South did not start the Civil War to protect slavery. That does not mean they have a constitutional right to have that view taught in the schools or to “opt out” of lessons that teach otherwise.
I don’t know how the decision of the current Supreme Court will affect this new case. They certainly have revoked many past precedents and norms.
We cannot accommodate every family that may have different beliefs. That is for them to teach at home. Someone might object to inter-racial marriage, and demand that no materials ever be shown with multi-racial families. Another might say that they don’t want their child exposed to any other religions, and demand that a storybook showing Muslims, Sikhs or Jews be eliminated from the classroom. We live in a society with lots of different types of people, who exist whether they are similar to us or not. This child will encounter other children with two moms or two dads in the course of his time in Lexington. Unless this parent wants to keep their child at home, learning at home, and never exposed to the world, it’s inevitable that their child will encounter diversity. The school cannot cater to these extreme demands.
Agreed. Thank you.
When I was growing up and being raised as a devout Orthodox Christian, I was taught that being a Christian meant to love and accept others with compassion, for example, to “turn the other cheek” and even to “love our enemies” as taught by Jesus. Ten years of Sunday School, as well as many years in Christian youth group, Church Camp and even serving as an altar boy throughout high school, I was never taught to fear or hate others who are different. Never once did anyone teach me to fear or detest gay people, that’s for sure.
It is sad to read that a parent here in Lexington objects to children leaning about love and acceptance of others in kindergarten. When a book entitled “All are Welcome Here” sends this parent to conduct “damage control” with their child and ultimately file a lawsuit against our school system, it makes me wonder what he is so worried about. Even if his version of Christianity judges’ others and disapproves how some people love and have different family constructs than their own, why is that such a threat? I know this lawsuit is not specifically about the book and that Alan L. requested extensive options to have is child opt-out from all sorts of curriculum. But really, the motivation here is clear, he fears his small child will learn about love and acceptance of others, even those who are different, or perhaps have families who love differently than his extreme religious beliefs would have them do. And what about all the other children in Alan’s child’s class who come from other traditions, religions, and cultures? Does he also fear that our school system includes them by celebrating Hindu or Jewish holidays? Will he file a lawsuit about that as well? I would argue, in fact, this diversity is one of the greatest strengths our Lexington community.
I also wonder if Alan has ever spent time in a Kindergarten class with these intrepid early educators trying to manage a classroom packed with five-year-olds? Our teaches must keeping everyone learning, engaged, safe, rested, fed, etc., etc. He expects them to stop everything, prioritize his child over all the other children due to his extreme religious beliefs and adjust the classroom agenda and curriculum. This reminds me of the other night at LHS Open House when I overheard a parent asking an AP Statistics teacher to email her daily about her son’s homework assignments. Like our teachers have time to do that! He of course declined. Will she file suit against the town? I don’t think so.
Public education is just that, public education. We as a community fund it and hire teachers to do nearly impossible things with limited resources, even here in Lexington. Our teachers, staff, and administrators do their very best to accommodate the countless needs of thousands of children every day. Now we as taxpayers, must pay lawyers to address this frivolous and extreme lawsuit. Our superintendent now has a huge distraction to deal with because Alan L and the deep pocketed American Center for Law and Justice, founded by Pat Robertson, the televangelist no less, is attacking our community and school system. Imagine if these people put all this money, time, and resources into something useful, like ensuring tolerance and compassion were taught throughout all our school systems, rather than their agenda of intolerance, fear and sad to say, hate. If only.
Thank you for speaking out in support of tolerance and kindness. I raised my family in the Orthodox Church and as a Church School teacher and Director, we focused on kindness toward others and respecting other faiths. It is disheartening to see how hard some people will fight to demonize members of the LGBTQIA community. I am grateful for people who will stand up for them – especially those who continue to hold their faith close.
You are so welcome! My mother was a Sunday School teacher for many years 🙂
LPS is required to teach all students. Students and their families include people of all races, ethnicities, faiths, abilities, sexual orientations, gender identities, citizenship and immigration statuses, socioeconomic circumstances, etc. The reality is that all kinds of people exist, so students and families will encounter all kinds of people in the schools. To provide an educational environment in which students can actually learn, LPS must treat all students and families with respect: LPS must acknowledge their existence and their basic humanity. Omitting books and other materials that include the very types of people who exist in our schools (pretending like they don’t exist, or trying to erase their existence) would convey the message that it’s okay to exclude those categories of people — that they are unworthy of acknowledgement, or that they are somehow wrong or bad. And that creates a hostile environment for students that undermines their education and emotional wellbeing.
All kinds of people, including LGBTQIA+ people, have existed throughout the history of humankind. Excluding the existence of LGBTQIA+ people would create a dishonest and incomplete education about human history, our community, and the world. The same would be true if LPS were to exclude the existence of people of color, people of varying faiths, people with disabilities, and so forth.
Acknowledging the existence of all kinds of people, and treating all kinds of people with dignity and respect, is not the same thing as teaching sex education. Parents and guardians can teach children about their faiths, values, and belief systems at home. In the schools, we cannot opt out of children discovering that all kinds of people exist — nor should we opt children out of the rule to treat all kinds of people with respect at school.
My wife and I are Jewish. Our closely held religious beliefs influenced the values and morals we instilled in our daughter. We believed enough in the moral and spiritual upbringing we provided for her that when she started kindergarten at Bowman, she would not be negatively influenced by ideas and beliefs that were counter to our own. It’s unfortunate that Alan L. has so little faith in his own parenting and in the moral foundations he has provided for his son that he believes J.L. will be “contaminated” and that he will turn away from the path Alan L. has set him on.
As far as pushing “controversial ideologies on children while flouting parental rights”, perhaps Alan L. or his attorney can explain when it became controversial to teach children that it is important to treat everyone, regardless of of race, religion, sexual orientation, or family structure, with kindness and respect. Or are Alan L. and his attorney telling us that certain groups are not deserving of kindness and respect?
Well said Avram.
I write this comment in order to request clarification. There are many specific traditions and communities within the broad umbrella of Christianity, each with its own beliefs. I would appreciate specificity as to which denomination of Christianity is referenced in this article and in the complaint described in the article, because not all Christians share the beliefs described in this article. Many Christian traditions joyfully welcome and affirm LGBTQIA+ folks. The congregation that I serve – Pilgrim Congregational Church, UCC – has been Open and Affirming (in other words, welcoming LGBTQIA+ people into the full life and ministry of our congregation) for nearly 25 years. We repeat this affirmation every Sunday morning as worship begins. We are Open and Affirming because of our understanding of the Bible. We celebrate the grand diversity of human beings and we give thanks that families come in a variety of wonderful and loving forms. The parent was described as “a devout Christian and holds a biblical view of marriage, gender, and sexuality.” I do not know what specific Christian tradition this parent practices. However, I am proud to say that at Pilgrim Congregational Church, United Church of Christ in Lexington – and at many other religious communities in Lexington and surrounding towns – LGBTQIA+ folks will find a warm and supportive welcome.
Sincerely,
Rev. Reebee Kavich Girash, Pastor
In choosing to opt out, the parents are also taking away the potential for the development of critical thinking skills that would naturally evolve during family discussions around content, events etc. Our nation does not need more ‘sheep’; we need people who can have discussions, ask questions of others and foster better understanding.
We already have a clear, evidence-based framework for deciding what content should or shouldn’t be eligible for parental opt-outs in public education. It comes down to three criteria:
1. Potential for harm to children
2. Potential for benefit to children and/or society
3. Strength of the evidence supporting what is being taught
When we apply this framework here, the conclusion is obvious. There is no credible, peer-reviewed research showing that children are harmed by learning accurate information about the diversity of people they will regularly encounter throughout their lives—including LGBTQ+ people. As Shannon D. noted, the exact same logic applies to all forms of human variation.
By contrast, there is abundant evidence—across fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, and history—that LGBTQ+ people (and queer behavior in animals) are simply part of the natural diversity of life on Earth. Good research is well-defined: it is peer-reviewed, reproducible, and broadly corroborated. LGBTQ+ existence easily meets that standard.
Then there is the practical burden on teachers and schools. Teaching is already an extraordinarily demanding profession. Creating micro-granular opt-outs for any mention or depiction of LGBTQ+ people—especially when the content poses no harm and provides societal benefit—would be unworkable. It would vastly increase stress, paperwork, and legal vulnerability for educators who are already stretched thin.
On a more personal note, I imagine the pain that many in our community feel when they see lawsuits attempting to erase LGBTQ+ people from curricula. It’s not just exclusionary; it actively harms community cohesion, well-being, and trust—all of which have concrete impacts on our collective happiness, social progress, and even our economy.
And when we weigh harms, the imbalance is stark. The harm of this lawsuit—fueling stigma, draining public resources, undermining belonging—far outweighs the supposed “harm” of a child reading Families, Families, Families and then having a simple, clarifying conversation at home. Ideally, that conversation makes clear that even if their family believes LGBTQ+ people should hide or deny who they are, we still owe everyone respect, dignity, and fair representation in society.
In short, the facts, the evidence, the educational mission, and the well-being of our community all point in one direction: inclusivity is not harmful. Erasure is.
So beautifully stated! Thank you. (This is why I love our community!)
One of the beautiful things about the LPS curriculum is that EVERY child is seen and celebrated. The use of books that have protagonists of every size, color, shape, ethnicity, religion, gender, and family makeup grows both children’s self-esteem and their tolerance. It normalizes the idea that *every* human being is valuable and worthy, and that is a deep lesson that we can ALL benefit from.
That spectrum of humans is reflected all across the curriculum, as it should be, because that spectrum of humans is all of our children. You can’t opt out because it’s not concrete separate lessons; its full representation of ALL OF US throughout all of our kids education.
PUBLIC school is paid for by ALL OF US and therefore, is duty bound to represent ALL OF US, not one narrow minority.
I hope that this lawsuit is dismissed early on, so that our tax money doesn’t have to go to defend it, but can rather be spent on the wonderful education our children are receiving.
While I am utterly dismayed by this lawsuit, I am heartened by the many responses to this story. I am proud of my neighbors for calling out the bad faith arguments that underpin the lawsuit. I am grateful to our educators, administration and school committee for preparing my kids to be citizens.
I am so old that I remember when the Bible did not say that Jesus taught us to hate our neighbor.
I just read this on sub stack. I wonder how Alan L. would respond if he lived in Arkansas and a parent filed a lawsuit protesting the posting of the 10 Commandments in elementary school classrooms because the 10 Commandments did not reflect the religious beliefs and traditions they were trying to instill in their children? Since I’m sure Alan L. is not a cynical hypocrite, he would fully support parental rights…correct?????
https://open.substack.com/pub/friendlyatheist/p/donor-pulls-scholarships-after-university?r=4qp010&utm_medium=ios
I am sorry to say LGBTQSA++ has a branding problem. I am completely for LGB rights, which now have been constitutionalized. But I feel queezy exposing my child to the ideology that gender is a choice which they can change on their whim. I would completely support if Lex educates my 2nd grader about love instead of talking about gender. Even better, if they stick to teaching how to read and write instead of getting messed up in these DEI topics. Just my $0.02.
Public education is just that, a place for affirming belonging and compassion for all.
I would suggest this parent re-read the LPS Vision Statement- “The vision of Lexington Public Schools is to prepare students for the future by fostering a vibrant, inclusive learning community where they can reach their full potential, with the cooperation of families and the community. This includes a commitment to academic excellence, innovation, and a holistic educational experience that cultivates lifelong learners who are capable, responsible, and ready for global challenges and opportunities. The core values associated with this vision include prioritizing joy in learning, curiosity, and compassion.”
This parent may wish to seek alternative educational settings which better align with their exclusive perspectives rather than de-valuing the community’s chosen values and priorities- Just the latest example of so many unfortunate, demonic, and ‘othering’ attempts to eliminate Inclusion in our democracy.
The issue is with the transparency of what is being taught. This is the only subject that is “weaved” into all subjects therefore the curriculum can’t be shared. As a parent, I should be able to know what is being taught to my children so we can have a conversation about it but it’s almost like it’s all done in secret. If you don’t believe me, I encourage you to reach out to your child’s teacher and ask for the LGBTQ itinerary.
The superintendents response a couple of years ago was basically, if you don’t like it, send your kid to private school.
I feel like we can do better.
Well said. And inclusion also means including people of faith or those whose values differ from yours.
Personally, there are some topics I want to discuss at home before they are taught at school (LGB for instance). And some topics (for eg. trans for gender non-binary) that I jsut do not want schools to teach. period.
The science is not settled for these topics (look at UK or Sweden) and there is too much activist noise.
I just reread this article after “reading” the book “Families, Families, Families” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAyiAqS5nq8). According to the article, Alan L. wants to “…opt his child out of lessons that normalize LGBTQ+ relationships…”.
My personal opinion is that such relationships were always normal. While the two books mentioned in the article include references to families led by two moms and two dads, the books are not normalizing same sex relationships. That was done more than twenty years ago when our state Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts and when the United States Supreme Court let stand the legality of gay marriage nation wide.
Alan L.’s son is likely in a classroom where he will meet children who have two moms or two dads or a trans parent. At some point his son will also likely meet their parents. The books Alan L. and like minded residents are so concerned about are only describing the families represented in classrooms Lexington students are educated in every day.