Transgender teacher sues Pinellas schools, claims pronoun discrimination
A former Pinellas County schools transgender teacher claims he was forced to resign because of the school district's implementation of Florida's 2023 law restricting the use of preferred pronouns.
Toby Tobin last week filed a federal lawsuit alleging the district discriminated against him on the basis of sex, in violation of a recent Supreme Court ruling on federal Title VII guidelines. The suit follows other administrative efforts to find the district violated Tobin's rights by refusing to call him Mr. Tobin after the law took effect.
Those steps included a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was referred to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. The department showed interest in the case, said Gabe Roberts, Tobin's lawyer with the Scott Law Team. 'However, after the election (of President Donald Trump), that interest went away.'
The department granted Tobin the right to pursue a civil lawsuit. Though now living with his family outside Florida and working without such limitations, Tobin said he felt compelled to fight the law.
'I can either just stay quiet and just let it happen, or I can show my son there's always another way, there's always another option,' said Tobin, who worked as a fifth-grade math and science teacher at Cross Bayou Elementary for two years. 'You don't just give up.'
A spokesperson for the school district said the district does not comment on pending litigation. Other agencies listed as defendants, including the Florida Department of Education, did not respond to a request for comment.
Tobin's case is another in a string of disputes that have arisen because of the hotly debated law. Earlier this month, a Brevard County teacher made headlines after she lost her job over using a student's preferred pronouns without parental permission.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has an active lawsuit challenging the law, also in federal court.
When he originally took a job with the school district in 2021, Tobin said he was open about being a transgender male.
'I was hired as Mr. Tobin,' he said. 'They had no problem with it.'
Only after the Legislature adopted the law on pronouns did trouble arise. The law stated that when it comes to public schools, a person's sex is an 'immutable biological trait and that it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person's sex.'
School employees were prohibited from asking students to call them by such pronouns, and students were not to be required to use them. The State Board of Education then updated its rules to make violation of that law subject to discipline under the educators' Principles of Professional Conduct.
Anticipating how the school district would react, Tobin took several steps to avoid using 'Mr.' while not being forced to misgender himself as 'Ms.'
He purchased a plot of land in Scotland to take on the title of 'Lord.' The district said he couldn't be referred to as Lord Tobin. He became a minister of the Universal Life Church, and made a donation to the Principality of Sealand to become a count.
'I teach math and science, and I'd be Count Tobin,' he said. 'The district said, 'This is not appropriate. You have to be Ms. Tobin.''
With his son attending school at Cross Bayou in Pinellas Park, and having just bought a home a year earlier, Tobin, 30, had planned to settle down in the community where he had so many close relationships. But it became clear, he said, that the state laws had created a situation where he could not be himself and keep his job.
'Effectively I was forced out,' said Tobin, who worked until July 1, 2023 — the day the pronoun rule became law. 'As sole provider for my family, we wound up having to flee Florida.'
Roberts said he expected the district and state to ask the judge to dismiss the case, on the basis that the law is legal.
'Obviously we disagree with that,' he said. 'We expect to prevail on the litigation for the simple reason that what schools are doing to teachers like Toby is against federal law.'
He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 ruling of Bostock vs. Clayton County, in which a six-justice majority penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, determined it to be a violation of Title VII if an employer 'intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender.'
Roberts also argued that the law violates free speech and privacy rights.
In the aftermath of leaving his job, Tobin wrote a self-published children's book, 'Call Me Mr. Tobin,' to let his students know why he left. He said he didn't emphasize the gender issues as much as encourage the children to use their problem solving skills and remain true to themselves.
That's all he said he was doing while in the classroom.
'Transgender people such as myself are not teaching gender ideology in the classroom,' Tobin said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sound Off: June 7, 2025
Sun Herald readers weigh in on local and national topics. My federal tax forms were filed on Feb. 6, and I was told the refund would take 'a few weeks.' Today is June 6, and still no refund. After repeatedly calling the 800 number, I personally drove to the local IRS office on Old Highway 49 in Gulfport. A security guard made me empty all my pockets and he frisked me. Then he sent me to the desk. The woman at the desk told me I had to call an 800 number to make an appointment. Is this any way to treat honest taxpayers? Orders and actions by the Trump Administration have been thwarted and obstructed by separate U.S. District Court judges around the country seven times in the past week alone. This was a publicly stated goal of left wing organizations during the election when it became clear that Trump would likely be elected. The American people are outraged by the blatant judicial overreach displayed by certain courts, issuing rulings far beyond their constitutional authority. This reckless abuse of power undermines the very foundation of our system of checks and balances and signals that parts of the judiciary have gone completely off the rails. If this continues unchecked, either the Supreme Court must intervene to restore order, or the people themselves will lose all confidence in the judiciary. Without accountability, even legitimate rulings on real crimes will be viewed with skepticism, threatening the rule of law itself. It matters not whether a judge is at the city level or a Supreme Court justice. Their job is to interpret the law and, ultimately, the constitution. Whether you, I or the president breaks the law, we are still subject to it and the ultimate law of the country, the constitution. I was wanting to give some information to the uninformed person who thinks law abiding citizens should be able to get full automatic weapons, since they say criminals have them. Law-abiding citizens already can get fully automatic weapons. They are just heavily regulated, limited in number, and very expensive. Criminals do not have them, and that is why we don't see them used in crimes. I apologize in advance for any harm caused by introducing facts and reality into your liberal echo chamber. The CDC says guns are the number one killer of children. Christians who claim to be pro-life need to really examine their position on gun safety regulations. How much money have you made betting on President Trump to flip-flop on tariffs? And if the answer is nothing, it's time to get on the train. Send your Sound Offs to soundoff@
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Where are the compassionate and moderating voices on Trump's travel ban?
Before he secured the Republican nomination for president in 2016, Donald Trump announced that he would seek 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' Reaction, including from human rights organizations and fellow Republicans, was swift, and, for the most part, was characterized by astonishment, outrage and condemnation. Marco Rubio posted online, 'I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.' At that time, Trump was an unknown entity in politics, and many believed he would never actually seek to implement the outrageous things he said. Unfortunately, one of Trump's first actions as a newly inaugurated president in January 2017 was to sign an executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. This was immediately met with lawsuits and protests. The order was amended two different times in response to court challenges; eventually, a scaled-back version was upheld by the Supreme Court. To their credit, many leaders and members of the president's party were dismayed by this ban at the time. They saw it for what it was — a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. They could see it as a clear attack on the pluralism that has long guaranteed that our nation — a nation of immigrants — remains a haven for people seeking to practice their religion according to their conscience while also contributing to society. When candidate Trump first voiced his pledge to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. in 2015, Utah Governor Herbert spoke out strongly against this idea: 'I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state's governor. In Utah, the First Amendment still matters. That will not change so long as I remain governor.' We remember both the early rhetoric of candidate Trump and the later actions of President Trump well. It was shocking and disorienting to watch his efforts to discriminate against others. It was disheartening to watch a political party descend into unchristian and uncharitable legalese, all with the aim to exclude others based solely on their faith or nationality. Mormon Women for Ethical Government was born in response to these efforts. At the outset, MWEG's founders envisioned a small group of women working together through peaceful, faithful, nonpartisan and proactive ways to counteract the unbelievable turn the government was making. But these women were not alone in their desire to take action. They were quickly joined by thousands of other women of faith who were ready to work for a more peaceful, just and ethical world. Over time, MWEG has become a strong voice in advocating for compassionate and moderating forces in government. The organization continues to attract women who want to proactively and peacefully support systems rooted in constitutional principles and the rule of law. We now have women in all 50 states engaging in the political arena as informed and principled citizens. Though much has changed since the formation of MWEG eight years ago, immigration remains a central and divisive issue. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, have been victims of dehumanizing language and unfair stereotyping. The current administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process. It has detained students without cause, deported a man by mistake and refused a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return, attempted to end birthright citizenship, revoked student visas, ended temporary protected status for many, and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This week, President Trump signed another proclamation that bans citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. In comparison to eight years ago, the large-scale response has been muted or even resigned. As the world has changed and political rhetoric has become ever more extreme, have we changed with it? Do things that were once the source of personal outrage and deep concern still concern us? Has our once-strong commitment to love our neighbor as ourself weakened? And, if we cannot love them, are we at least as committed to maintaining their claim to Constitutional protections as we were eight years ago? As an organization, MWEG is committed to amplifying the best aspects of our Christian faith. That faith is rooted in a gospel of generosity. We are also committed to preserving the Constitution that, among other things, protects our ability, as members of a minority faith, to participate freely in civic life, to express our views and to practice our religion without fear of repercussions. Actions like this ban seem directed at a particular group, but they actually undermine the constitutional rights that protect all of us from government overreach. As citizens of a free nation, we can and should speak out when we see those rights being violated. In 2017, the threat was widely recognized by leaders and citizens from both parties. It is worth contemplating why this is no longer the case.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
