PARTIES

1.

The plaintiff David Parker is an individual who lives at --- ------- ------, Town of
Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

2.

The plaintiff Tonia Parker is an individual who lives at --- ------- ------, Town of
Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Hereinafter, the
plaintiffs David Parker and Tonia Parker will be referred to from time to time collectively
as the "adult plaintiffs."

3.

The plaintiff Jacob Parker is an individual who lives at --- ------- ------, Town of
Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Jacob Parker is a
minor child. His parents and legal guardians are the plaintiffs Tonia and David Parker.

4.

The plaintiff Joshua Parker is an individual who lives at --- ------- ------, Town of
Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Joshua Parker is a
minor child. His parents and legal guardians are the plaintiffs Tonia and David Parker.

5.

The plaintiff Joseph Robert Wirthlin is an individual who lives at --- ------- ------,
Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

6.

The plaintiff Robin Olsen Wirthlin is an individual who lives at --- ------- ------, Town
of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Hereinafter, the
plaintiffs Joseph Wirthlin and Robin Wirthlin will be referred to from time to time
collectively as the "adult plaintiffs."

7.

The plaintiff Joseph Robert Wirthlin, Jr. is an individual who lives at --- ------- ------,
Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Joseph
Robert Wirthlin, Jr. is a minor child. His parents and legal guardians are the plaintiffs
Joseph and Robin Wirthlin.

8.

The defendant William Hurley is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Mr. Hurley is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Mr. Hurley was at pertinent times the Superintendent of the Public
Schools of the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts and regularly
does business within said Town.

9.

The defendant Paul B. Ash, Ph.D. is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Dr. Ash is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Dr. Ash is the current Superintendent of the Public Schools of the Town
of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts and regularly does business within said Town.

10.

The defendant Helen Lutton Cohen is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Ms. Cohen is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Ms. Cohen at all pertinent times was a duly elected member of the
School Committee of the Public Schools of the Town of Lexington, County of
Middlesex, Massachusetts and regularly does business within said Town.

11.

The defendant Thomas R. Diaz is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Mr. Diaz is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Mr. Diaz at all pertinent times was a duly elected member of the School
Committee of the Public Schools of the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex,
Massachusetts and regularly does business within said Town.

12.

The defendant Olga Guttag is an individual whose residence is unknown to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs aver that Ms. Guttag is domiciled within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Ms. Guttag at all pertinent times was a duly elected member of the School Committee of
the Public Schools of the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts and
regularly does business within said Town.

13.

The defendant Scott Burson is an individual whose residence is unknown to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs aver that Mr. Burson is domiciled within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Mr. Burson at all pertinent times was a duly elected member of the School Committee of
the Public Schools of the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts and
regularly does business within said Town.

14.

The defendant Thomas Griffith is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Mr. Griffith is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Mr. Griffith at all pertinent times was a duly elected member of the
School Committee of the Public Schools of the Town of Lexington, County of
Middlesex, Massachusetts and regularly does business within said Town.

15.

The defendant Andre Ravenelle is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Mr. Ravenelle is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Mr. Ravenelle is and at all pertinent times was the Director of Education
for the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts and regularly does
business within said Town.

16.

The defendant Joni Jay is an individual whose residence is unknown to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs aver that Ms. Jay is domiciled within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Ms. Jay is and at all pertinent times was the Principal of the Estabrook Elementary
School, an elementary school located in the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex,
Massachusetts and regularly does business within said Town.

17.

The defendant Jennifer Wolfrum is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Ms. Wolfrum is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Ms. Wolfrum was at pertinent times the Co-ordinator of Health
Education of the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts and regularly
does business within said Town.

18.

The defendant Heather Krarner is an individual whose residence is unknown to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that Ms. Kramer is domiciled within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Ms. Kramer was at pertinent times a teacher at the Estabrook Elementary
School, an elementary school located in the Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex,
Massachusetts and regularly does business within said Town.

19.

The defendant Town of Lexington, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts is a municipal
corporation that can sue and be sued.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
THE PARKERS

20.

At all pertinent times, David and Tonia Parker, the adult plaintiffs, were married to one
another. The adult plaintiffs are the natural parents of the plaintiffs Jacob and Joshua,
who were born on March 27, 1999, and October 30,2000, respectively.

21.

In or around 2004, the adult plaintiffs, together with their two natural children, moved to
Lexington, Massachusetts following a corporate restructuring by Mr. Parker's employer.

22.

The adult plaintiffs were attracted to the Town primarily by its highly-touted school
system.

23.

The plaintiffs are devout Judeo-Christians. Included in their core Judeo-Christian beliefs
is the concept that issues pertaining to sexual intimacy, procreation, human sexuality, and
the holy basis of matrimony should remain private within families, be introduced by
parents, and governed by the laws of the God of Abraham. Also included is the concept
that homosexual behavior is immoral in that it violates God's law.

24.

The Parkers enrolled Jacob in the public schools upon reaching kindergarten age. In
September 2004, five-year old Jacob began attending kindergarten classes at Estabrook
Elementary School.

25.

Almost immediately thereafter, the defendants commenced an intentional campaign to
teach the Parkers' very young child that the family's religious faith was incorrect.

26.

On January 14,2005, Jacob Parker brought home a "Diversity Book Bag." The
ostensible purpose of the "book bag" was "intended to strengthen the connections among
our school population and build an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for cultural racial
ability and family structure diversity." The goal according to the defendants was to
"engage the student and parent population in a sustained effort of acknowledging and
celebrating the diverse backgrounds and families in our school community." The bag
contained a book titled, Who's in a Family by Robert Skutch. Upon reviewing the book,
the Parkers realized that the book appeared to depict homosexual couples with children.
The Parkers had received no notice that these materials would be sent home at that time.

27.

Jacob is now in the first grade. First graders have a "reading center" in the classroom that
serves as a mini-library. The same book, Who's in a Family, is in Jacob's reading center
along with an additional book, Molly's Family by Nancy Garden, depicting gay and
lesbian relationships and gay and lesbian marriage. These books are available to Jacob
without parental notification and there is no method by which the Parkers could exercise
an opt-out option. They are available without parental supervision.

28.

This subject is one of great concern to the Parkers. By virtue of their strong religious
faith, the Parkers adhere to a religious principle that holds that marriage is holy
matrimony by definition, a union between a man and a woman, and that labeling marriage
to be otherwise is immoral. The notion of the acceptable interchangeability of male and
female within the marriage construct and within a personal identity dictated by nature is
not consistent with the Parkers' sincerely-held religious beliefs, nor is the sexual acting
out of same-sex attraction (homosexuality).

29.

The Parkers recognize that at some point, their children will be exposed to the knowledge
that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts endorses as legal some marriages they believe
to be inconsistent with their faith. However, they did not wish to discuss the topic of
homosexual marriage or homosexuality and transgenderism with Joshua or Jacob at their
current ages.

30.

On information and belief, the individual defendants Joni Jay and William Hurley, as
well as the defendant School Committee members, were among those individually
responsible for introducing the book Who's in a Family to Jacob's class, and they did so
on behalf of the Town. When they and the Town included Who's in a Family in the book
bag, they acted with the specific intention to indoctrinate young children into the concept
that homosexuality and homosexual relationships or marriage are moral and acceptable
behavior.

31.

In order to determine whether their child would receive additional information in school
related to homosexuality and transgenderism, the Parkers initiated a dialogue via email
with the Principal of the School, Joni Jay, and the Superintendent of Schools, William
Hurley. On January 21, 2005, David and Tonia Parker met with Principal Jay to discuss
their concern. At this meeting, the Parkers repeatedly objected to any exposure to or
discussions of homosexuality, transgenderism, bisexuality, sexual orientation, and
homosexual marriage by any adult within the School to their five-year-old son. Ms. Jay
responded, "Any adult within the school can discuss homosexual families and
homosexual issues with your child. This is not a parental notification issue."

32.

On or around February 8,2005, the Parkers began attending the Estabrook Elementary
School's Anti-Bias Committee meetings. On February 8,2005, the couple attended a
meeting featuring Jon Pfeifer, a Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
representative. The meeting's subject was titled "How and Why to Talk to Your Children
about Diversity." In fact, the meeting focused exclusively upon homosexuality and how
to acclimate young children to it. Mr. Pfeifer encouraged the Committee to place many
homosexual family books in each classroom, hang gay and lesbian family posters in each
classroom, and encourage teacher-initiated discussions in each class. Mr. Pfeifer's
response to one parent's comment that kids learn negative jargon at a young age was
"kids learn easier . . . go through year after year and it'll be better." Several teachers and
the Principal of the Estabrook Elementary School attended the meeting, and visibly and
verbally affirmed this action plan.

33.

On information and belief, the Town, School Committee, Ms. Jay, Mr. Hurley, and Dr.
Ash have adopted Mr. Pfeifer's suggestions. On information and belief, the purpose of
adopting these suggestions is the specific intention to indoctrinate young children into the
concept that homosexuality and marriage between same-sex partners is moral and
accepted, and that those who hold a faith such as the Parkers are incorrect in their beliefs.
Essentially, the defendants are requiring the minor plaintiffs to affirm a belief inconsistent
with and prohibited by their religion. Such indoctrination is inconsistent with the
Parkers' sincere and deeply-held religious faith.

34.

As a result of these concerns, the Parkers decided to make a specific request of the
Lexington Public Schools. On March 4,2005, they wrote to the defendant Principal Jay,
the defendant Mr. Ravenelle, the defendant Ms. Wolfium, and the defendant
Superintendent Hurley. The Parkers specifically requested that no teacher or adult expose
their child to any materials or discussions featuring sexual orientation, same-sex unions,
or homosexuality without notification to the Parkers and the right to "opt out."

35.

Principal Jay responded on March 4,2005 that it was the School's position that parents
would not be notified of any discussions, even adult-initiated discussions, which dealt
with gay-headed families, as such information was not included in the School's parental
notification policy.

36.

On March 6, 2005, the Parkers sent an email to Principal Jay of the Estabrook Elementary
School and the Anti-Bias Committee requesting information. No one responded to it.

37.

The Parkers were concerned by the tone of the February 8,2005 Anti-Bias Committee
meeting. For this reason, they attended more meetings; at one meeting, which occurred
on April 1 1,2005, it was announced that more homosexually-themed books would be
placed in each classroom without parental notification. This greatly concerned the
Parkers.

38.

The Parkers asserted that the School's position was contrary to their religious views and
parental rights to raise their children in accordance with their personal beliefs. They
requested a meeting to discuss the matter in person with Principal Jay. Ms. Jay invited
the Parkers to a meeting with herself and Andre Ravenelle, the Director of Education, to
take place on April 27,2005 at 3:00 p.m. at Estabrook Elementary School. At the
meeting, the Parkers met with both Ms. Jay and Mr. Ravenelle. The meeting focused on
the Parkers' interim need to have a plan in place for the remainder of the school year. A
handwritten agreement was drafted and faxed to the Superintendent's Office. Ms. Parker
left the meeting, while Mr. Parker remained. At some point, Mr. Parker was informed
that the School would not agree to any temporary plan, and the meeting was terminated.
Mr. Parker, frustrated by the turn of events, refused to leave the school and was arrested
for trespassing by the Lexington Police Department.

39.

Subsequently, the defendant Superintendent Hurley issued a no-trespassing order against
Mr. Parker, banning him from all school property. (In November 2005, the no-trespass
order was dismissed by the new Superintendent, the defendant Dr. Ash.)

40.

Following the arrest of Mr. Parker, Mr. Hurley, along with the Lexington Chief of Police
Christopher Casey, released a statement to the press and community that was sent home
with all Lexington Public School children in their book bags. It reads in full:

At the request of Mr. and Mrs. Parker, a school principal and the Director of
Curriculum and Instruction for the Lexington Public Schools ("Administrators")
met with the Parkers on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, starting at approximately
3:00 p.m. The Administrators agreed to meet with the Parkers to consider their
several requests, which appeared related to a picture book entitled "Who's in a
Family?" The book was among several included in a "diversity book bag" that
children in the Lexington Public Schools are permitted to take home for parents to
read with their child if they wish. The book is designed for young children and
includes illustrations of children accompanied by various parent figures, including
two individuals of different genders, two individuals of the same gender,
grandparents, bi-racial couples, as well as a one-parent family.

In particular, the Parkers requested the Administrators to ensure that in the future,
teachers automatically excuse or remove the Parkers' child even when discussions
about such issues arise, even if spontaneously. In response, the Administrators
described Lexington Public Schools' policy, adopted under state law (Chapter 71,
Section 32A), allowing students to opt out of curriculum that "primarily involves
human sexual education or human sexuality issues." The Administrators
explained that granting the Parkers' request was not required by the Policy or
statutory language. In addition, they explained that implementation of the
Parkers' request was simply not practical, since children could even discuss such
matters among themselves at school.

The Administrators informed the Parkers that they could appeal the response both
within the school department and, if necessary, to the Commissioner of Education.
However, Mr. Parker replied, "Other people have tried that and it did not work."
The Parkers stated that they would not leave the school until their demands were
met.

With the hours passing and the Parkers refusing to leave the school building, the
Lexington Police were notified. While Mrs. Parker chose to leave before police
arrival, Mr. Parker did not. Two plain-clothed detectives arrived at 5:20 p.m.,
followed by a Police Lieutenant at 6:00 p.m. All attempted to coax Mr. Parker to
leave voluntarily. However, Mr. Parker made it clear that he would not leave
unless his demands were met and that he knew he was engaging in "civil
disobedience" and was willing to accept the consequences. Mr. Parker declared,
"If I'm not under arrest then I'm not leaving." Mr. Parker also used his cell phone .
to make a number of phone calls, and a small group of people began arriving with
cameras.

Finally, when it became necessary for the administrative staff to leave and secure
the building, the police arrested Mr. Parker at 6:24 p.m. The group with the video
camera was waiting behind the police station and photographed Mr. Parker's
arrival. Mr. Parker was processed at the police station, afforded all his rights, and
after using the telephone, chose not to be bailed. He was held overnight at the
Lexington Police Station and in the morning was transported to the Concord
District Court for arraignment.
 

41.

The defendant Scott Burson, an elected member of the Lexington School Committee, also
commented publicly at the May 27,2005 School Committee meeting that he was
"particularly distressed at trying to turn our children into cannon fodder in the culture
wars. They deserve better." While he did not specifically mention the Parker family, on
information and belief, the comments were directed toward the Parkers and others.

42.

During the current 2005 -2006 school year, the Parkers' oldest son Jacob is in the first
grade at the Estabrook Elementary School. In September 2006, the second of the Parkers'
children, Josh, is expected to begin kindergarten at Estabrook Elementary School. On
December 2,2005, the Parkers again notified the Superintendent's Office of their request
via a Parental Right Assertion. They requested:

to be notified when there are plans to discusslpresent homosexuality,
transgenderism, or gay relationshipslmarriage in our son's presence. When
"spontaneous" adult discussion arises with the intent to affirm, validate, celebrate,
and/or normalize homosexuality, transgenderism, or gay relationshipslmarriage -
we request that our child be removed from this discussion. We request to also be
notified in advance of any other planned human sexual education and human
sexuality issues such as abortion, birth-control, pre-marital sex, or surveys. We
also request to view any materials within the school pertaining to the
aforementioned topics within the reach of our child.
 

43.

On or about September 22,2005, the defendant Superintendent Ash issued a statement
that (on information and belief) was generated in part by the controversy surrounding the
plaintiffs' reasonable and constitutional requests. The statement reads, in its entirety:

What does the law say schools have to do?
By Paul Ash
Superintendent of Schools, Lexington, MA
Published in the Lexington Minuteman
Thursday, September 22, 2005
 

          Over the summer, I have received a number of questions about implementation of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 32A ("Section 32A"). These questions
relate to the following provision:

Every city, town, regional school district or vocational school district
implementing or maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human
sexual education or human sexual issues shall adopt a policy ensuring
parentallguardian notification. Such policy shall afford parents or guardians
the flexibility to exempt their children from any portion of said curriculum
through written notification to the school principal.

In Lexington, curriculum identified by the statute generally begins at the fifth-
grade level. LPS [Lexington Public Schools] has, of course, adopted a policy
implementing Section 32A, and school staff routinely provide parents with notice
and the flexibility to "opt out" of this curriculum.

Recently, questions have been raised as to whether school staff also has an
obligation to notify parents and allow "opt out" of other school-based activities,
particularly in the elementary grades. For example, some parents have requested
they be notified whenever their child has access to any material, conversation, or
activity that acknowledges differences in sexual orientation, including any
reference to families with same-gender parents.

Since elementary curriculum often elicits discussion of family experiences, such
references certainly may occur. In addition, our schools routinely provide
students with access to materials, activities, and discussions that recognize
diversity. This access is designed to assist us in our goal of maintaining an
appropriate and respectful educational environment for all students. As required
by law and LPS policy, this environment must be free of discrimination based on
race, gender, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin and disability.

The Massachusetts Department of Education, which is responsible for
administering Section 32A, has explained 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 of Section 32A.
Under this standard, staff has no obligation to notify parents of discussions,
activities, or materials that simply reference same-gender parents or that otherwise
recognize the existence of differences in sexual orientation. Accordingly, I expect
teachers to continue to allow children access to such activities and materials to the
extent appropriate to children's ages, to district goals of respecting diversity, and
to the curriculum. As this new school year begins, I look forward to working with
the Lexington community to provide a positive educational environment for all
students.

44.

This release is inaccurate and intentionally crafted to demean the Parkers' legitimate and
constitutional concerns. Specific problems are identified below:

45.

In December 2005, the defendant Superintendent Ash formally rejected the Parkers'
request for notification.

46.

These actions caused the plaintiffs severe emotional distress.

47.

Young children of the ages of the two Parker children are far more susceptible to
indoctrination and persuasion than are children even a few years older.

48.

At all pertinent times, the actions of the defendants jointly and severally constituted "state
action" as that term is defined in the various counts below.

49.

There exists a true and justiciable conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendants,
which conflict is certain to continue such that declaratory relief may be granted.

THE WIRTHLINS

50.

At all pertinent times, Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, the adult plaintiffs, were married to
one another. The adult plaintiffs are the natural parents of the plaintiff Joseph Robert
Wirthlin, Jr., "Joey," who was born on September 13, 1998.

51.

At all pertinent times, the minor plaintiff Joey was enrolled in the second grade at the
aforesaid Estabrook Elementary School.

52.

Each week, the teacher chooses books to place on a particular bookshelf in the classroom.
The children are supposed to read the books and determine the unifying theme of the
books. The theme of the week ending March 24,2006 was "weddings."

53.

On or about Friday, March 24,2006, the teacher in Joey's class, defendant Heather
Kramer, read out loud to .the students from a book entitled King and King, which she had
selected from the library. This book describes a romantic attraction between two men.
The protagonist is a male prince who is told by his mother that he needs to find a wife.
He rejects several females for superficial reasons such as the fact that one princess is
"black" and has arms that are too long. One princess is too fat, and one has glasses and
crooked teeth. He then discovers he is homosexual, falls in love and lives happily ever
after with another homosexual male. The two males are graphically depicted as kissing at
the end of the book.

54.

Like the Parkers, the Wirthlin plaintiffs are devout Judeo-Christians. Included in their
core Judeo-Christian beliefs is the concept that issues pertaining to sexual intimacy,
procreation, human sexuality, and the holy basis of matrimony should remain private
within families, be introduced by parents, and governed by the laws of the God of
Abraham. Also included is the concept that homosexual behavior is immoral in that it
violates God's law.

55.

This theme of romantic physical contact between two men is not one that the Wirthlins
wish to have celebrated and affirmed to their young, seven-year-old son, because it is in
contravention of their sincerely and deeply-held faith.

56.

On information and belief, the defendant Ms. Kramer knew or should have known that
reading King and King would be in direct contravention of the deeply-held faith of the
Wirthlins and possibly others. On information and belief, Ms. Kramer selected King and
King; to read to the students for the express purpose of indoctrinating them into the
concept that homosexuality and marriage between same-sex partners is moral. In so
doing, she consciously intended to intrude upon the Wirthlins' right to direct the moral
upbringing of their own children.

57.

The evening of the reading, Joey returned home and was agitated. He told his parents
about the book, which he described as "so silly."

58.

The Wirthlins then sent an email to Ms. Kramer, and requested clarification. Ms. Kramer
telephoned them on Monday, March 27, 2006, confirming the book had been read, and
told them the name of the book.

59.

On March 30, 2006, the Wirthlins attended a previously scheduled parent-teacher
conference with Ms. Krarner. The book was not discussed.

60.

Later that same day, the Wirthlins emailed Ms. Kramer specifically to arrange a meeting
to discuss the book. A meeting for the next day was arranged.

61.

On March 3 1, 2006, Ms. Kramer called in the morning and asked to postpone the meeting
and to choose a different time to meet. Additional emails were exchanged and a new
meeting was set for April 6,2006. She also asked what the topic of the meeting would
be. The Wirthlins indicated they had additional concerns and wanted to discuss the book
that was read.

62.

On or about April 5, 2006, the Wirthlins received a telephone call from the defendant
Principal Jay. Ms. Jay asked them who they were bringing, besides themselves, to the
scheduled meeting, and informed the Wirthlins that she intended to be present. She also
inquired as to the intended outcome.

63.

On April 6,2006, the meeting took place. Principal Jay presented the plaintiffs with the
letter Dr. Ash had previously written. (See paragraph 43, supra.) She took the position
that allowing second-graders to view the book King and King was consistent with Dr.
Ash's statement. Ms. Jay was cordial but unwilling to bend at all on the issue of notice.
Essentially, she reiterated Dr. Ash's statement and indicated that it was the only policy
that would be considered.

64.

On or about April 1 1, 2006, the Wirthlins received an email from the defendant Principal
Jay stating that their concerns were at a "district-wide level" and that she would not be
able to answer them.

65.

At the meeting on April 6, 2006, the Wirthlins repeatedly requested that they be informed
before the adult defendants intentionally presented themes of homosexuality to their
children. The defendants have indicated that they will not do so; to the precise contrary,
the defendants intend to persist in presenting themes of romantic homosexual activity to
second-graders.

66.

On information and belief, the reason why the defendants will not inform the Wirthlins is
that the defendants' specific intention is to coercively indoctrinate the children into moral
belief systems that are markedly different from those of their parents, and the defendants
harbor a specific intention to denigrate the Wirthlins' sincere and deeply-held faith. The
Wirthlins wish to direct the personal moral and religious views of their own children and
believe these children are too young, at ages seven and eight to be able to comprehend the
complexities of such a controversial and advanced topic.

67.

On or about April 13, 2006, the plaintiff Robin Wirthlin encountered the defendant Ms.
Jay in the Wirthlins' daughter's classroom. RobinWirthlin asked Ms. Jay why she would
not further discuss the issues, and again sought to discuss the issues with Principal Jay.
Ms. Jay refused to discuss the issues with the Wirthlins, and stated that she had been
instructed by Dr. Ash not to speak with the Wirthlins about these issues.

68.

The conduct of Ms. Jay and Dr. Ash is the direct implementation of an unconstitutional
policy planned and conducted by themselves and the other co-defendants.

69.

There exists a true and justiciable conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendants,
which conflict is certain to continue such that declaratory relief may be granted.

COUNT I:
42 U.S.C. 6 1983/DUE PROCESS VIOLATION

UNREASONABLE INTRUSION INTO HYBRID
RIGHTS TO DIRECT MORAL UPBRINGING OF CHILDREN
FAMILIAL PRIVACY. AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
 

70.

The plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in the abovecaptioned
paragraphs and incorporate them by reference as if fully and completely set
forth herein.

71.

The aforesaid acts of the defendants intruded upon and impaired the adult plaintiffs'
clearly established substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, as parents and guardians to direct the moral upbringing of their children,
and the clearly established rights of the minor children to such upbringing.

72.

The aforesaid actions of the defendants constituted an unreasonable intrusion into the
familial privacy rights of the respective plaintiffs in violation of the plaintiffs' clearly
established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and otherwise invaded
and impaired the plaintiffs' clearly established rights to privacy under the Fourth, Fifth,
and Fourteenth Amendments.

73.

The aforesaid actions of the defendants invaded and impaired the plaintiffs' clearly
established rights to the free exercise of their religion.

74.

The combined effect of these deprivations is synergistic and requires the state to set forth
a compelling state interest in its conduct. There is no compelling state interest in
persisting in the indoctrination techniques being utilized by the defendants.

75.

As a direct result of said unlawful acts, the plaintiffs sustained great damages.

76.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. tj 1988, plaintiffs are entitled to attorney's fees and expert fees in
connection with the bringing of the claims alleged in this count.

COUNT II:
MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
 

77.

The plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in the above
captioned paragraphs and incorporate them by reference as if fully and completely set
forth herein.

78.

By engaging in the conduct described above, including threats, intimidation and coercion,
the defendants interfered with and deprived the plaintiffs of their exercise and enjoyment
of their civil rights secured under the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 12, 5 111.

79.

As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12,
§ 11I, the plaintiffs suffered the injuries described above.

COUNT III:
MASSACHUSETTS "OPT OUT" STATUTE
 

80.

The plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in the above
captioned paragraphs and incorporate them by reference as if fully and completely set
forth herein.

81.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 7 1, 32A reads as follows:

§ 32A. Parental Notification of Human Sexual Education Curriculum.

Every city, town, regional school district or vocational school district implementing or
maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human
sexuality issues shall adopt a policy ensuring parentallguardian notification. Such policy
shall afford parents or guardians the flexibility to exempt their children from any portion
of said curriculum through written notification to the school principal. No child so
exempted shall be penalized by reason of such exemption.

Said policy shall be in writing, formally adopted by the school committee as a school
district policy and distributed by September first, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven, and
each year thereafter to each principal in the district. A copy of each school district's
policy must be sent to the department of education after adoption.

To the extent practicable, program instruction materials for said curricula shall be made
reasonably accessible to parents, guardians, educators, school administrators, and others
for inspection and review.

The department of education shall promulgate regulations for adjudicatory proceedings to
resolve any and all disputes arising under this section.
 

82.

The Town of Lexington has begun a program intended primarily to indoctrinate very
young elementary school children in the notion that homosexuality and homosexual
relationships and marriage are right and moral.

83.

Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71 § 32A, the plaintiffs have the right to be notified and
to excuse their children from this curriculum.

84.

The defendants have breached this right and by said breach have caused the plaintiffs
great damage.

COUNT IV:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 8 1983
 

85.

The plaintiffs repeat and reassert the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and
incorporate them by reference as if fully and completely set forth herein.

86.

By having engaged in the conduct described above, the defendants conspired to deprive
the plaintiffs of their due process rights and their rights to equal protection of the law or
of the equal privileges and immunities under the law, and they acted in furtherance of the
conspiracy which resulted in the injury to the plaintiffs as described above, all in violation
of 42 U.S.C. 5 1983.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, jointly and severally, respectfully request this honorable court :

1.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 2201, to declare and rule that there exists a justiciable
controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants;

2.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 2201, to issue a declaratory judgment declaring that each
defendant has violated each of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights of due process as set
forth above;

3.

Order equitable and injunctive relief ordering that:

4.

Order payment of compensatory damages to the West extent allowed by law;

5.

Order payment of special, exemplary, or punitive damages, to the fullest extent allowed
by law;

6.

Order payment of attorney's fees, expert fees, prejudgment interest, interest, costs and;

7.

Provide such additional relief as the court deems just.

JURY DEMAND

              PLAINTIFFS RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO
TRIABLE.