logo
Transgender teacher sues Pinellas schools, claims pronoun discrimination

Transgender teacher sues Pinellas schools, claims pronoun discrimination

Yahoo21-04-2025
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump killed affirmative action. His base might not like what comes next.
Trump killed affirmative action. His base might not like what comes next.

Vox

time39 minutes ago

  • Vox

Trump killed affirmative action. His base might not like what comes next.

Proponents for affirmative action in higher education rally in front of the US Supreme Court on October 31, 2022, in Washington, Donald Trump's administration is scrutinizing higher education. Last week, the White House issued a memorandum requiring all universities receiving federal funds to submit admissions data on all applicants to the Department of Education. The goal is to enforce the 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-based affirmative action. Days before the memo was released, Columbia and Brown agreed to share their admissions data with the administration, broken down by race, grade point average, and standardized test scores. The administration suspects that universities are using 'racial proxies' to get around the ban on race-based admissions. The Department of Education is expected to build a database of the admissions data and make it available to parents and students. Amid this increased federal scrutiny, an alternative idea from Richard Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project for the Progressive Policy Institute, is gaining attention. Kahlenberg, who testified in the Supreme Court cases against Harvard and UNC, advocates for class-based affirmative action instead of race-based admissions. He argues that this approach will yield more economically and racially equitable results. Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Kahlenberg about how he contends with the consequences of helping gut race-based affirmative action, why he believes class-based affirmative action is the path forward, and if his own argument may come in the crosshairs of a Trump administration eager to stamp out all forms of affirmative action. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You're the director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute. I would take it to mean that you are a progressive. It's complicated these days. I'm left of center. I think of myself more as liberal than progressive. I ask because you testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. This is the case that essentially gutted race-based affirmative action. It doesn't sound like a progressive, or even a left-of-center, position. What was going on? Explain what you were thinking. I've long been a supporter of racial diversity in colleges. I think that's enormously important, but I've been troubled that elite colleges were racially integrated, but economically segregated. I think there's a better way of creating racial diversity — a more liberal way, if you will — which is to give low-income and economically disadvantaged students of all races a leg up in the admissions process in order to create both racial and economic diversity. What was the data that you looked at that led you to believe that? Were primarily wealthy Black and Hispanic students benefiting from affirmative action? There'd been a number of studies over the years that had come to that conclusion, including from supporters of race-based affirmative action. Then, in the litigation, further evidence came out. At Harvard, 71 percent of the Black and Hispanic students came from the most socioeconomically privileged 20 percent of the Black and Hispanic population nationally. Now, to be clear, the white and Asian students were even richer. But for the most part, this was not a program that was benefiting working-class and low-income students. Alright, so the Supreme Court in 2023 hands down this decision that says, essentially, we're done with race-based affirmative action. Was there a difference in how progressives and conservatives interpreted the Supreme Court ruling? Most mainstream conservatives have always said they were opposed to racial preferences, but of course, they were for economic affirmative action. But now we have some on the extreme, including the Trump administration, saying that economic affirmative action is also illegal if part of the rationale for the policy is seeking to increase racial diversity. What do you make of that? That was your team once upon a time, right? Well, I think it's troubling when people shift the goalposts. In a number of the Supreme Court concurring opinions in the case, conservatives said that economic affirmative action made a lot of sense. Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, for example, said if Harvard got rid of legacy preferences and instead gave economic affirmative action, that would be perfectly legal. And now some extremists are shifting their position and saying they're opposed to any kind of affirmative action. Are you surprised by that shift? I'm not surprised. I'm confident, however, that a majority of the US Supreme Court won't go that far. The Supreme Court, to some degree, looks to public opinion. Racial preferences were always unpopular. But economic affirmative action is broadly supported by the public. The Supreme Court has had two cases come before it, subsequent to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. One involved a challenge to class-based affirmative action at Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern Virginia, and the other involved an attack on a similar class-based affirmative action program at the Boston exam schools, like Boston Latin. In both cases, the Supreme Court said we're not gonna hear those cases over the vehement dissent of a couple of extremely conservative justices. So I'm fairly confident that the Supreme Court will not go down the path of striking down economic-based preferences. What do you make of this move by the Trump administration to ask colleges for data? I'm of two minds about it. I do think transparency is good in higher education. These institutions are receiving lots of taxpayer money. We want to make sure they're following the Supreme Court ruling, which said you can't use race. Having said that, I'm quite nervous about how the Trump administration will use the data, because if a college discloses the average SAT scores and grades by race of applicants, of those admitted, and then those enrolled, one of two things can be going on. One is that the university's cheating and they're using racial preferences, and that would be a violation of the law. The other possibility is that they did shift to economic affirmative action, which is perfectly legal. And because Black and Hispanic students are disproportionately low income and working class, they will disproportionately benefit from a class-based affirmative action program. And so the average SAT score is going to look somewhat lower. I'm worried that the Trump administration will go after both race-based and class-based affirmative action. Because class-based affirmative action still might mean a college is admitting more Black and Hispanic students. And what the Trump administration seems to have the issue with is that fact. Yes. Increasingly, that's what it looks like. As long as the Trump administration was focused on counting race and deciding who gets ahead, they had the American public on their side. But Americans also support the idea of racially integrated student bodies, they just don't like racial preferences as the means for getting there. So, if Trump says, no matter how you achieve this racial diversity, I'm just opposed to racial diversity, he'll have lost the public. And I don't think he will be consistent with the legal framework under Students for Fair Admissions, either. Do you think he cares?

For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender policy
For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender policy

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender policy

A GENDER-CRITICAL group is taking action against the Scottish Government over policies it says are 'inconsistent' with the Supreme Court ruling on gender. For Women Scotland's legal battle with Scottish ministers on the definition of a woman ended in the UK's highest court, which ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. However, the group said that it now has 'little choice' but to take further legal action as some policies regarding transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody remain in place – which the group said is 'in clear breach of the law'. The schools guidance for single-sex toilets says it is important that young people 'where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon has shown 'complete lack of human decency,' says Alex Salmond's niece The prison guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the women's estate if the person does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis to suppose that she poses an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women's estate. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. It has raised an ordinary action for reduction (quashing) of the policies relating to schools and prisons, with the news first reported by the Sunday Times Scotland. In a statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action, and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then, we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. 'We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' READ MORE: Police Scotland 'breaching human rights to subdue Palestine protests', activists say A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' For Women Scotland previously brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. Originally, this had included transgender women who self-identify or had a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), before the Scottish Government amended the guidance. FWS repeatedly lost their case in the Scottish courts, before taking the case to the Supreme Court.

Scottish Government in new court battle over trans prison and school rules
Scottish Government in new court battle over trans prison and school rules

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Scottish Government in new court battle over trans prison and school rules

Scottish ministers are being dragged back to court over claims they are ignoring a Supreme Court ruling that sex in law means biology, not gender identity. For Women Scotland is suing the Scottish Government, accusing them of defying April's landmark judgement. The gender-critical campaign group has lodged a summons at the Court of Session, served on the Scottish Ministers, the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland on Friday. They have 21 days to respond — a deadline that will coincide with a planned demonstration outside the Scottish Parliament. READ MORE For Women Scotland threaten SNP with fresh legal action Scottish Government to review 'unlawful' trans policy EHRC issues new warning to Scottish Government over sex definition ruling For Women Scotland said they had 'little choice' but to go back to court. They first warned they were considering legal action back in June. In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. While First Minister John Swinney welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the ruling, the Scottish Government has said it is awaiting further guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before issuing advice to public bodies. The watchdog is expected to publish an updated statutory Code of Practice — effectively an instruction manual on applying the Equality Act — later this year. However, the EHRC has repeatedly said ministers do not need to wait before acting on the ruling. In April the court ruled that sex in law meant biological sex Speaking to The Herald in July, Dr Lesley Sawers, Deputy Chair and Scotland Commissioner at the EHRC, said ministers had 'a responsibility to ensure their adherence to the Public Sector Equality Duty' — the legal requirement for public authorities in Scotland to consider protected characteristics, including biological sex, when carrying out their functions. She warned: 'The current climate of uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody.' 'The law, as set out in the Supreme Court's clear judgment, has been in effect since it was handed down on April 16. 'Service providers and public bodies should in any event be following the law while they wait for our statutory guidance, as it will not cover every eventuality. 'We have urged relevant bodies to seek their own legal advice where necessary, to inform decisions about what changes they need to make now to their existing policies and practices.' Some bodies, including the Scottish Parliament and Police Scotland, have already updated their policies in response to the ruling. READ MORE Museums Scotland warn venues may close over toilet guidance For Woman Scotland intervene in Sandie Peggie tribunal 10 most jaw-dropping moments in Sandie Peggie tribunal In a statement, For Women Scotland said they were focusing on two specific policies: Supporting Transgender Pupils In Schools: Guidance for Scottish Schools, and the Scottish Prison Service's Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody. The schools guidance allows pupils 'to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with', and states that 'if PE classes are organised by sex, a transgender young person should be allowed to take part within the group which matches their gender identity'. In April, following separate legal action, a Scottish judge ruled that schools must provide single-sex toilets, but ministers have yet to withdraw the guidance, first issued in 2021. Meanwhile, the prison guidance allows prisoners to be accommodated in the estate that matches their acquired gender — both at admission and at any later stage. It also permits a male prisoner with a history of violence against women or girls to be housed in the female estate, or — if deemed too high a risk to be placed there — to nonetheless take part in women-only activities and programmes. According to the latest Scottish Prison Service (SPS) figures, of the 8,190 prisoners currently in custody, 16 identify as transgender. The SPS does not disclose where they are being held. Among them is Paris Green, formerly known as Peter Laing, who was convicted of murder and torture in 2013. The SPS allows trans prisoners on the estate of their acquired gender (Image: PA) The new legal action is not a judicial review but an 'ordinary' action for the 'reduction' — or quashing — of the government policies. If successful, the court would rule the policies unlawful and effectively annul them. For Women Scotland said: 'We campaigned against the introduction of the prison guidance in February 2024, and in May 2025 the Cabinet Secretary for Justice confirmed her continued refusal to withdraw the policy in response to a letter from MurrayBlackburnMackenzie. 'The Cabinet Secretary for Education stated the government 'will not withdraw' the schools guidance, as did the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice at a meeting in May 2025. 'We have since asked Scottish Government officials, including the Permanent Secretary, to withdraw both policies, and numerous questions have been raised in Parliament, most recently by Annabelle Ewing and Pam Gosal, challenging the continuing operation of the policies following the UK Supreme Court judgment. 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action, and both policies remain stubbornly in place — to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls — leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish Ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then, we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' The Scottish Government has already spent around £216,000 of public money fighting the first case and at least £157,816 on the second. The total bill to the taxpayer is now expected to exceed £600,000. Dr Michael Foran, the incoming Associate Professor of Law at Oxford University, said: 'The rule of law is undermined when judicial decisions are ignored by governments seeking to create ambiguity where there is none. If the clear decision of the Supreme Court doesn't prompt the Scottish Government to act, losing a third case brought by For Women Scotland might.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store