Marlboro BOE 'Considers Options' After Court Puts Trans Policy On Hold

MARLBORO, NJ – The Board of Education is currently "considering its options for appeal" of a Superior Court ruling that has temporarily blocked implementation of its policy to require parental notification should a student express a change in gender identity.

In a statement, the board said it "continues to advocate for parental rights and their ability to be involved in all aspects of their minor children’s lives."

There are approximately 4,500 students in the district, ranging from preschool through grade 8.

According to Marlboro Board of Education Attorney Marc H. Zitomer, no action on an appeal has been taken as yet.

"The Board will discuss possible appeal at a future meeting in executive session under the litigation/attorney client privilege exception," Zitomer, of Florham Park, said Tuesday.

On Aug. 18, Monmouth County Superior Court Judge David Bauman granted the state's request for a preliminary injunction that blocks the Marlboro Board of Education's amended transgender pupil policy - as well as similar policies in the Middletown and Manalapan-Englishtown Regional districts - until the matter can be fully adjudicated at the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. You can read more about the Marlboro and Manalapan policies here.

The State of New Jersey and the head of the Civil Rights division are challenging the boards' amended policies, claiming they are discriminatory and therefore in violation of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination.

Marlboro disagrees and restated its amended policy:

"To recap, the Board's amended policy requires school officials to notify parents if their own child changes his/her gender identity or expression, which is typically manifested by the student using different names/pronouns, restrooms/changing facilities and participating in activities/sports of the gender with which the student identifies. Under the amended policy, notification will occur after a school counselor collaborates with the minor student about how such notification will occur. If there is a health and safety concern for the student, notification will not occur until the concerns can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction," according to the proposed policy.

And the board said its policy is not discriminatory:

"The Board strongly refutes that this is discriminatory. In fact, the Board believes that the Judge's ruling, which places the Board's policy on hold for what could be several years, is a significant step backwards for parents who have a constitutional right to be aware and involved in the upbringing of their children. The Board also believes it is potentially harmful for this pre-K through 8 student population, as they will not have the benefit of parental involvement and support unless the minor student consents to such parental disclosure."

In its response, the board took issue with comments from Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin after the ruling that “...the State has always respected the rights of parents and agrees that parents should be involved in important issues involving their children" and that “... the State is not targeting parental rights."

But the board said the "lawsuit does exactly that - it seeks to prevent the parental notification and involvement that is the keystone of the Board's amended policy."

The Marlboro School District believes in "partnering with parents and students, however the State's position is that the determination for such a partnership shall be left in the hands of a minor child, some of whom are as young as five years of age," the Marlboro board said.

In a statement after the ruling, Platkin said, in part, "All our lawsuits seek to do is to reinstate the same policies these districts found acceptable with little protest for years. Put simply, we can both keep parents informed about their children’s development and protect the civil rights of our most vulnerable students. Our laws require nothing less."

In June, Platkin announced the filing of Division on Civil Rights complaints challenging what it termed "unlawful policies" in Marlboro, Manalapan-Englishtown and Middletown districts.

The state action alleges that all three of the policies violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.

As the complaints assert, the policies "expressly target transgender, gender non-conforming, and gender non-binary students by singling them out for differential treatment, requiring parental notification for those students but not their peers," the Attorney General's office says.

An Administrative Law court hearing on the matter would likely not be held until December or January 2024, according to reporting in a past Patch article.