Update Regarding Student Privacy and Parental Notification Litigation

05.12.2025

In our commitment to provide current information regarding this topic, this Alert provides updates on the current status of state and federal litigation regarding what are commonly referred to as “parental notification” policies. This Alert follows our previous Alerts discussing Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1955, also known as “Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act” or “SAFETY Act”[i] and preceding Alerts detailing lawsuits against various California public school districts regarding their respective “parental notification” procedures.[ii]

This Alert provides an update on the litigation against Chico Unified School District (“CUSD”), as detailed in previous alerts. This Alert also discusses challenges by unions at the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”). For convenience, this Alert provides a summary of the information from our earlier Alerts as well as updates on actions by the courts and school districts in these matters.

Union Challenges to Parental Notification Policies

As covered in a previous Alert, there have been a number of union challenges to parental notification policies under collective bargaining laws with PERB. These challenges are being litigated as unfair labor practice charges (“ULPC”) and were filed by employee unions of various school districts related to the districts’ respective adoptions of parental notification policies. In these cases, the unions argue the districts were required to negotiate the impacts and effects the policy may have on mandatory subjects of bargaining before the policy could be implemented. While there are still union challenges in litigation, such as a challenge against the Chino Valley Unified School District, other challenges and their decisions have had a significant impact on parental notification policies.

Temecula Valley Educators Association, CTA/NEA v. Temecula Valley Unified School District

In August 2023, Temecula Valley Unified School District (“TVUSD”) adopted a parental notification policy (as established by Board Policy 5020.1) that required the principal/designee, certificated staff, and school counselors, to inform a student’s parent or guardian in writing within three (3) days once that District employee, administrator, or certificated staff, becomes aware that a student is: 1) requesting to be identified or treated as a gender other than the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate; 2) Accessing sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, or using bathroom or changing facilities that do not align with the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the birth certificate or other official records; or 3) Requesting to change any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records. The Temecula Valley Educators Association, with the support of the California Teachers Association (“CTA”), filed a ULPC, arguing that TVUSD was required to negotiate the impacts and effects that the parental notification policy may have on mandatory subjects of bargaining before the policy could be implemented. On October 14, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ruled in favor of the union, holding the district failed to negotiate properly the parental rights policy. TVUSD did not appeal the decision to PERB or a higher authority based on the board’s failure to file an appeal prior to the newly constituted board was seated. On December 17, 2024, the TVUSD board voted to rescind the policy.

Rocklin Unified School District v. Public Employee Relations Board

While not the only case litigating parental notification policies before PERB, this case is significant among its contemporaries due to the fact that it is the first to be heard by a level above the ALJ level.

In early September 2023, the Rocklin Unified School District (“RUSD”) amended two administrative regulations regarding parental notification procedures. Specifically, RUSD amended Administrative Regulation (“AR”) 5040 to give parents and guardians the right “to be notified within three (3) days by the classroom teacher, counselor, or site administrator when their child, 1) requests to be identified as a gender other than the child’s biological sex or gender; 2) requests to use a name that differs from their legal name (other than a commonly recognized nickname); 3) requests to use pronouns that do not align with the child’s biological sex or gender; or 4) requests access to sex-segregated school programs and activities, or bathrooms or changing facilities that do not align with the child’s biological sex or gender.” RUSD also amended AR 5145.3 to state that “a student’s transgender or gender…non-conforming status is the student’s private information with the exception of parental notification.”

The ALJ found that by adopting a parent notification policy that created new expectations for bargaining unit members to disclose student information to parents, the employer changed a written policy, implemented a new policy, and/or enforced an existing policy in a new way. The ALJ held RUSD’s adoption of the policy was an unlawful unilateral change. It was held to be a “change in job duties” because this was not in the unit member teacher or counselor job descriptions. The ALJ did not accept the District’s argument that language in the job descriptions requiring teachers to communicate with parents and students about educational and social progress encompassed the disclosures the policy would require. The ALJ also indicated a belief that the parental notification policy was unlawful, and therefore not negotiable. After the ALJ ruled in favor of the union, RUSD appealed the decision to PERB. On January 28, 2025, PERB affirmed the ALJ’s decision and ordered the RUSD’s governing board to rescind the amended regulations.

On February 27, 2025, RUSD appealed PERB’s decision to the California Third District Court of Appeals. As of the date of this publication, the status of the case is still pending.

AALRR is monitoring this and the other PERB cases and will provide updates on their progress.

Regino v. Staley (Chico Unified School District)

On April 4, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived the parental notification-related lawsuit against the Chico Unified School District (“CUSD”). This decision stems from a July 11, 2023 decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissing a parent’s lawsuit against CUSD regarding its administrative regulation prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s consent. The parent (Regino) filed the federal lawsuit after her child socially transitioned genders at school without the district notifying the parent. Regino challenged the district’s AR 5145.3’s language, arguing it “permits school personnel to socially transition students expressing a transgender identity” and prohibits school personnel from informing parents of this change “unless the student expressly authorizes them to do so.” The parent argued the regulation violates substantive and procedural due process and the First Amendment right to familial associations.

CUSD filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which the district court granted. The parent appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit noted that both parties had “revamped” their arguments and positions on appeal.

The Ninth Circuit (No. 23-16031) ruled the district court applied incorrect legal standards when it dismissed Regino’s case. The Ninth Circuit articulated a strong position in favor of procedural protections applying to all liberty interests, not just those that are deemed “fundamental.” On remand to the district court, the Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to address whether the parent has properly alleged an infringement of a fundamental right.

President Trump’s Executive Orders on Parental Notification Policies

On January 30, 2025, the White House issued Executive Order 14191 (“Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families”). Executive Order 14191 recognizes the federal government’s position that “parents, not the government, play a fundamental role in choosing and directing the upbringing and education of their children.”

In conjunction with the Executive Order, on March 28, 2025, U.S. Department of Education Secretary (“USDOE”) Linda McMahon issued a “Dear Educator” letter reminding educational institutions receiving federal funding of their compliance obligations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (“PPRA”). To supplement the “Dear Educator” letter, the USDOE Student Privacy Policy Office issued additional guidance regarding FERPA and noted schools must allow parents to review all “educational records” of their student.

As Executive Order 14191 announces the “policy” position of the federal government, it is not known how it will affect ongoing litigation on parental notification policies.

Impact on California Schools

The legal landscape regarding parental notification policies remains unclear and may remain so as the many legal challenges work their way through the courts. We are closely following this issue and remain committed to providing updates on the status of the cases discussed herein, as well as any other significant developments in this area.

For further information on the content of this Alert, please contact your AALRR attorney or the authors.