Yeshiva University Creates New LGBTQ Student Group Amid Litigation

Yeshiva University, which is embroiled in litigation over whether it must recognize an LGBTQ student group, YU Pride Alliance, yesterday announced that it has approved a new club for undergraduate LGBTQ students "that presents an approved traditional Orthodox alternative to YU Pride Alliance." Known as Kol Yisrael Areivim Club, the new organization is described by the University:

This newly founded undergraduate student club, which emerges from Yeshiva’s principles and its students’ interest for a club under traditional Orthodox auspices, was approved by the Administration, in partnership with lay leadership, and endorsed by senior Roshei Yeshiva. It also reflects input and perspectives from conversations between Yeshiva’s rabbis, educators, and current and past undergraduate LGBTQ students. The club will provide students with space to grow in their personal journeys, navigating the formidable challenges that they face in living a fully committed, uncompromisingly authentic halachic life within Orthodox communities. Within this association students may gather, share their experiences, host events, and support one another while benefiting from the full resources of the Yeshiva community – all within the framework of Halacha – as all other student clubs.

The University said it also wants to strengthen its support systems for LGBTQ students. 

YU Pride Alliance issued a response to the University's announcement, calling it a "desperate stunt" by the University, saying in part:

The YU sham is not a club as it was not formed by students, is not led by students, and does not have members; rather it is a feeble attempt by YU to continue denying LGBTQ students equal treatment as full members of the YU community.

Both sides say the current litigation will continue. The Forward reports on these developments.

Florida Education Department Adopts Two Rules On LGBTQ Concerns

 As reported by the Washington Blade, the Florida Department of Education on Wednesday by a unanimous vote adopted two rules relating to LGBTQ issues.  New Rule 6A-10.086 (full text) provides in part:

If a school board or charter school governing board has a policy or procedure that allows for separation of bathrooms or locker rooms according to some criteria other than biological sex at birth, the policy or procedure must be posted on the district’s website or charter school’s website, and must be sent by mail to student residences to fully inform parents.

Amendments to Rule 6A-10.081 (full text) provides that Florida teachers:

Shall not intentionally provide classroom instruction to students in kindergarten through grade 3 on sexual orientation or gender identity....

Violation of the rule can lead to suspension or revocation of a teacher's certificate. 

Texas Federal District Court Invalidates HHS and EEOC Guidance On Application Of Bostock Decision

In State of Texas v. EEOC, (ND TX, Oct. 1, 2022), a Texas federal district court held that Guidance documents issued by the EEOC and by the Department of Health and Human Services are unlawful. It vacated and set aside the Guidance documents. At issue are the HHS and EEOC applications of the Supreme Court's Bostock decision. Bostock held that sex discrimination in Title VII includes discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The HHS Guidance interprets the Affordable Care Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA to prohibit denial of gender-affirming care by healthcare providers. The Texas federal district court says that Bostock  only bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity status, and does not extend to discrimination based on conduct related to those statuses. The court concluded that the HHS Guidance is arbitrary and capricious because it misstates the law (in part by suggesting that gender dysphoria is a disability under the ADA) and does not detail what went into the Department's decision making. The court held that the EEOC violated procedural rules in issuing its Guidance. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release reacting to the decision. Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Yeshiva University Suspends All Student Organization Activities Rather Than Recognize LGBTQ Organization

As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance ordered Yeshiva University to first seek relief through appeals in state courts before asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a state trial court order requiring it to recognize an LGBTQ student group. Now, as reported by CNN, the University on Friday announced that it would put all undergraduate club activities on hold while it "takes steps to follow the roadmap provided by the US Supreme Court..."

UPDATE: Religion News Service reports:

A Jewish LGBTQ organization [JQY] announced Tuesday (Sept. 20) that it will step in to provide funding for all student clubs at Yeshiva University after school officials suspended all undergraduate student groups rather than recognize an LGBTQ campus group, the YU Pride Alliance.

UPDATE 2: In a statement (full text) issued Sept. 21, YU Pride Alliance announced that it would agree to a stay of the order requiring the University to recognize it while the litigation continues because it does not want YU to punish fellow-students. As reported by The Commentator, the University welcomed the response, saying it offers an opportunity for continuing discussions.

Supreme Court Vacates Stay of Injunction Against Yeshiva University, Sending Case Back To State Courts

The U.S. Supreme court yesterday in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2022), vacated the stay issued on Sept. 9 by Justice Sotomayor of a New York state trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. In a 5-4 vote, the Court issued the following opinion directing the University to first seek expedited review and interim relief from New York trial courts.  Here is the full opinion [paragraph breaks added]:

The application (22A184) for stay pending appeal of a permanent injunction entered by the New York trial court, presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court, is denied without prejudice to applicants again seeking relief from this Court if, upon properly seeking expedited review and interim relief from the New York courts, applicants receive neither. The order heretofore entered by Justice Sotomayor is vacated.

Applicants Yeshiva University and its president seek emergency relief from a non-final order of the New York trial court requiring the University to treat an LGBTQ student group similarly to other student groups in its student club recognition process. The application is denied because it appears that applicants have at least two further avenues for expedited or interim state court relief. First, applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal. Applicants do not assert, nor does the Appellate Division docket reveal, that they have ever requested such relief. Second, applicants may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that court’s denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals, as the Appellate Division clerk’s office directed applicants to do on August 25. Applicants may also ask the Appellate Division to expedite consideration of that motion.

If applicants seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, they may return to this Court.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join, dissent.

NY Jewish Week reports on the decision. [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is the full text of Justice Alito's dissent. He said in part:

At least four of us are likely to vote to grant certiorari if Yeshiva’s First Amendment arguments are rejected on appeal, and Yeshiva would likely win if its case came before us. A State’s imposition of its own mandatory interpretation of scripture is a shocking development that calls out for review. The Free Exercise Clause protects the ability of religious schools to educate in accordance with their faith.

Christian University Trustees Sued Over LGBTQ Hiring Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Washington state trial court against six members of the Board of Trustees of Seattle-Pacific University challenging the University's policy of refusing to hire LGBTQ faculty or staff if they are in a same-sex marriage or a same-sex relationship.  The complaint (full text) in Guillot v. Whitehead, (WA Super. Ct., filed 9/11/2022), brought by a group of students, faculty and staff, alleges breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and interference with contractual relationships. It contends that "rogue" members of the University Board of Trustees have misled other Board members about the vote necessary to eliminate the hiring policy. The University, which was founded by the Free Methodist Church of North America, defines itself as a Christian university. One-third of its board members and its president must be members of the Free Methodist Church. The complaint alleges in part:

1. This case is about six men who act as if they, and the educational institution they are charged to protect, are above the law.

2. They are powerful men who use their positions, as trustees of Seattle Pacific University (“SPU”), to advance the interests of a religious denomination at the expense of the students, alumni, staff, and faculty of the university....

102. SPU is a university in crisis, stemming from the abusive leadership of entrenched interests who usurped control of the BOT to place it in service of sectarian-motivated LGBTQ+ discrimination....

AP reports on the lawsuit.

Justice Sotomayor Stays NY Order Requiring Yeshiva University To Recognize LGBTQ Group

In Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2022),  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor today issued an order staying a New York trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The New York trial court held that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Justice Sotomayor granted the University's Emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review without referring the petition to the full Court. However she wrote that her stay was granted "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." CNN reports on developments.

Yeshiva University Asks Supreme Court For Stay While State Court Ruling On Recognizing LGBTQ Group Is Appealed

Yesterday, an emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review (full text) was filed in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., filed 8/29/2022). In the case,  a New York state trial court held that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. (See prior posting.) State appellate courts refused to stay the ruling. The petition contends that Yeshiva University is likely to succeed on its contention that forcing it to recognize the group violates the University's free exercise rights and the principles of church autonomy. The filing asks that alternatively it be treated as a petition for certiorari. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the Application.

Michigan Supreme Court: State's Public Accommodation Law Bars Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights, (MI Sup. Ct., July 28, 2022), the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, held that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act's ban on sex discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case was brought in the state Court of Claims by two businesses which, on religious grounds, refused to serve LGBT clients. One of the plaintiffs had refused to host a same-sex wedding at its event center. The other had refused to provide electrolysis hair-removal services to a transgender woman. The Court of Claims, bound by higher state court precedent, held that the ELCRA did not cover sexual orientation discrimination. However, lacking state court precedent on its application to transgender discrimination, the Court of Claims held that the ECLRA does ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  Only the holding regarding sexual orientation was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Justice Clement's majority Supreme Court opinion said in part:

[W]e conclude that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves discrimination because of sex in violation of the ELCRA. In so doing, we find persuasive Bostock’s application of Title VII’s but-for standard. While we are encouraged but not bound to consider persuasive Title VII federal case law, ... we find that Bostock offers a straightforward analysis of the plain meaning of analogous statutory language and we agree with its reasoning....

Plaintiff Rouch World, along with the dissent, also criticizes this conclusion as inconsistent with the intent of the 1976 Legislature that enacted the ELCRA. It argues that the ELCRA’s legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature intentionally chose to exclude protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation, both at the time of its enactment by declining to include the specific language and repeatedly thereafter by rejecting proposed amendments that would have added the specific language. However, the legislative history of a statute is relevant to the statute’s meaning only where the statute is ambiguous.... When the statute’s language is clear, as it is here, we rely on that plain language as the best evidence of its meaning.

Judge Zahra, dissenting, said in part:

I take no issue with the merits of the policy adopted today by a majority of this Court. I also harbor no doubt that my colleagues in the majority are acting in good faith, with pure hearts and the best of intentions.

Yet ... this Court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be.

The majority opinion declares that “because of . . . sex” means something that nobody in 1976 thought it meant.... [T]he majority opinion also declares that phrase to encompass something that the enacting Legislature specifically and explicitly considered including but ultimately chose not to embrace.... If we are to be faithful to our constitutional mandate to say what the law is, we simply cannot pretend that the ELCRA says something that it does not say.

Justice Viviano filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

The relevant statutory provision, MCL 37.2302(a), prohibits certain discriminatory actions taken “because of . . . sex,” among other things. Properly interpreted, this requires that the defendant maintain some prejudice, bias, animus, or belief about “sex” or the other characteristics protected by the statute....

[D]iscrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation is not discrimination because of some prejudice, bias, animus, or belief about the male sex or the female sex.

Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.

Christian University Sues To Stop Investigation of LGBTQ Discrimination

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by a Christian university challenging the state of Washington's investigation of whether the university has discriminated in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation.  The complaint (full text) in Seattle Pacific University v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 7/27/2022), alleges in part:

4. As part of its religious commitment, Seattle Pacific expects its faculty, staff and leadership to agree with the University’s statement of faith and to live out that faith as a model for others, including by living according to the University’s religious teachings on marriage. Seattle Pacific relies on its faculty, staff, and leadership to provide a Christian higher education by integrating faith and learning.

5. The U.S. Constitution recognizes and protects the right of Seattle Pacific University to decide matters of faith and doctrine, to hire employees who share its religious beliefs, and to select and retain ministers free from government interference.

6. Defendant does not recognize that right. Despite the Constitution’s clear prohibition on interference in matters of church governance, including entangling investigations of religious employment decisions and the selection of ministers, Washington’s attorney general has launched a probe that does just that.

Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

HHS Proposes Rule Expanding Health Care Nondiscrimination Requirements

The Department of Health and Human Services yesterday issued a 308-page rule proposal (full text) titled Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities. The proposed rule would reverse a narrower interpretation of the nondiscrimination provisions in the Affordable Care Act that was reflected in a Trump Administration rule. As summarized by the American Hospital Association:

[T]he proposed rule restores and strengthens civil rights protections for patients and consumers in certain federally funded health programs after a 2020 version of the rule limited its scope and power to cover fewer programs and services. Specifically, HHS said the rule affirms protections against discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, and reiterates protections from discrimination for seeking reproductive health care services.

Bloomberg Law has more on the proposed rule.

Court Enjoins DOE and EEOC From Enforcing LGBT Anti-Discrimination Interpretations Because Of Procedural Issues

 In State of Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Education, (ED TN, July 15, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court enjoined the Department of Education and the EEOC from enforcing against 20 states that are plaintiffs in the case documents interpreting Title IX and Title VII as including prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. According to the court:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants’ guidance documents are legislative rules and that the guidance is invalid because Defendants failed to comply with the required notice and comment procedures under the APA.

CNN reports on the decision.

University's No-Contact Orders To 3 Christian Students Violate Free Speech Rights

In Perlot v. Green, (D ID, June 30, 2022), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the University of Idaho to rescind no-contact orders issued to three law students who are members of the Christian Legal Society and a limited-contact order issued to a faculty member who is the CLS advisor. Defendants were also barred from issuing future no-contact orders based on pure speech alone. The action, taken by the University because of its interpretation of Title IX provisions, were based on conversations or remarks by the students to a female LGBTQ student on the Christian biblical view of marriage and sexuality. The parties dispute the exact content of those remarks. The female student told university officials that she felt targeted and unsafe. The court said in part:

Defendants issued the no-contact orders to Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs discussed their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage and because they discussed religious discrimination. Thus, it appears the no-contact orders apply to Plaintiffs because of the “message expressed.” ...

Similarly, Defendants’ orders targeted the viewpoint of Plaintiffs’ speech. Both students and professors expressed opposing viewpoints to the views expressed by Plaintiffs without any type of intervention, let alone punishment..... Thus, while all of these parties’ speech was on the same topic, only one viewpoint—Plaintiffs—was deemed worthy of intervention and discipline.....

Instead of focusing on sexual harassment, Defendants focus on harassment in general and argue that people have a right to be free from being bothered. Title IX does not provide such a right....

... The Court in Hill made a clear distinction between the right to attempt to persuade others to change their views and offensive speech that is so intrusive that the unwilling audience cannot avoid it. The right to free speech cannot be curtailed simply because the speaker’s message may be offensive to his audience....

In a footnote, commenting on a faculty member's statement that religious beliefs are not an excuse to deprive others of their rights, the court said:

Phrases such as this have taken root in recent years and paint an overtly negative picture of religious liberty. The assumption such phrases implicate is that people use their religion to mask discriminatory conduct and then try to “hide” from any legal consequences by invoking religious protection. The Court will not dissect why this assumption is a shallow look at religion, and fails to provide any substance to numerous individual constitutional rights. Suffice it to say, in a pluralistic society, people should honor differing viewpoints and build bridges of understanding instead of arguing that opposing viewpoints are inherently discriminatory and must be punished or excluded from the public square.

Employees' Religious Objections To Apron Logo May Support Title VII Claim

In EEOC v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, (ED AR, June 23, 2022), an Arkansas federal district court refused to dismiss a religious discrimination claim brought by the EEOC against Kroger for failing to accommodate two employees who refused to wear the company's apron which features a four-color heart symbol. Kroger developed the symbol as part of a new campaign emphasizing the company's four service-based commitments. The employees insisted that the symbol promotes the LGBT community. Their religious beliefs prevent them from promoting homosexuality which they believe is a sin. The court said in part:

Kroger acknowledges that the Court can't sit in judgment of the objective reasonableness of a sincerely held religious belief ...  [But] according to Kroger ... it is objectively unreasonable to believe that the Our Promise symbol supports and promotes the LGBTQ community. Thus, Kroger concludes, there is no conflict at all between Lawson and Rickerd's religious beliefs and Kroger's dress code. ...

Kroger slices things far too thin by isolating the "religious belief" question from the "conflict" question.... [T]hose questions are too bound up with each other for Kroger's theory to be correct. Subjecting the "conflict" question to an objective-reasonableness review would inevitably subject some aspect of the employee's religious beliefs, practices, or observances to the same standard. And we know that isn't allowed....

In any event, even if Kroger was right ..., there's evidence in the record that would allow (but not require) a rational juror to conclude... that Lawson and Rickerd reasonably believed that wearing the multi-colored heart would communicate support for and promotion of the LGBTQ community....

Regardless of what Kroger intended for its Our Promise symbol to mean, Lawson and Rickerd object to being seen as supporting or promoting homosexuality. So, the real question would be whether it was objectively reasonable for Lawson and Rickerd to believe that other people (i.e., customers) would think that the multi-colored heart was a pro-LGBTQ symbol. And a rational juror could go either way on that question.

President Issues Executive Order On Equality For LGBTQI+ Individuals

President Biden yesterday issued an Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals. (Full text). The Order sets out a long list of initiatives to be undertaken by various Cabinet departments and federal agencies. These include using federal authority to counter state laws which limit access to medically necessary care, reducing the risk of exposure to conversion therapy, and strengthening non-discrimination protections.  The Order also focuses on support for LGBTQI+ individuals in schools, housing programs, family counseling and health care.

Yeshiva University Must Recognize LGBTQ Student Group

In YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, (NY Cty. Sup.Ct., June 14, 2022), a New York state trial court held that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance.  The University must immediately grant the organization the full and equal treatment accorded to other student organizations.  The court rejected the University's claim that it is exempt from coverage under the definitions in NY Admin Code §8-102 which excludes from coverage a "religious corporation incorporated under the education law."  While Yeshiva University is incorporated under the education law, according to the court:

Yeshiva's organizing documents do not expressly indicate that Yeshiva has a religious purpose. Rather, Yeshiva organized itself as an "educational corporation" and for educational purposes, exclusively.... [T]he inquiry must focus on the purpose of the institution, which is typically expressed in a corporation's organizing documents. There may be schools organized under the education law that have a stated religious purpose so that they are exempt.... Since Yeshiva has not done so, the court does not need to reach this issue.

The court went on to hold that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights, saying in part:

Assuming arguendo that Yeshiva's refusal to recognize an LGBTQ student group is part of its exercise of religion, the NYCHRL's impact on Yeshiva's exercise of religion is only incidental to the NYCHRL's ban on discrimination. There can be no dispute that the NYCHRL is a neutral law of general applicability. It does not target religious practice....

... Yeshiva's Free Speech rights will not be violated by application of the NYCHRL. Formal recognition of a student group does not equate with endorsement of that group's message....

Washington Examiner reports on the decision.

Employee Sues After Being Fired For Religious Objection To Rainbow As Gay Pride Symbol

Suit was filed this week in an Iowa federal district court by a former employee of a metal engineering and manufacturing company who says he was fired for expressing his Christian beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Snyder v. Arconic, Inc., (SD IA, filed 5/18/2022), charges religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and state law. It alleges:

In June 2021, in attempting to respond to an anonymous company survey, Mr. Snyder briefly commented that the company’s use of the rainbow to promote “Gay Pride Month” was “an abomination to God,” as the rainbow “is not meant to be a sign for sexual gender.”

... Arconic informed Mr. Snyder that his comment had been posted publicly on the company “intranet”—which was not Mr. Snyder’s intent—and that it had offended a fellow employee. Mr. Snyder was summarily suspended and then terminated, allegedly for violating the company’s “diversity policy.”

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Christian Flight Attendants Sue After Being Fired For Their Posted Views On LGBTQ Rights

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by two Alaska Air flight attendants who allege, under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws, illegal religious discrimination, hostile work environment, workplace harassment and retaliation.  The flight attendants were fired after they posted on an internal employee message board their opposition to the Airline's support for the federal Equality Act which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as groups protected against workplace discrimination. According to the complaint (full text) in Brown v. Alaska Airlines Inc., (WD WA., filed 5/17/2022):

3.... Marli and Lacey felt compelled by their Christian faith to post one comment each, asking about the impact of the Equality Act on civil rights for religion and women in the workplace.

4. Alaska Airlines responded to Marli and Lacey’s posts by immediately removing Marli and Lacey from their flight schedules, terminating their employment, and disparaging their religious expression and beliefs as “discriminatory,” “hateful,” and “offensive.”

5. When Marli and Lacey—both union members—faced termination because of their religious practices and beliefs, AFA failed to effectively represent them, ignoring civil rights laws prohibiting both employers and unions from discriminating on the basis of religion.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

More Context Needed In Student's Suit Over Right To Wear Shirt With Anti-Gay Bible Verse

In B.A.P. v. Overton County Board of Education, (MD TN, April 27, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court refused to dismiss a suit challenging on free exercise and free speech grounds a school's disciplining of a student who refused to take off a shirt that read: "homosexuality is a sin - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10." The court said in part:

 "[T]o justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion" under Tinker, a school must show that it acted out of '"more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' but rather, 'that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the [student’s expression] would substantially interfere with the work of the school or would impinge upon the rights of other students.'"...

Here, an adequate analysis of B.A.P.’s First Amendment claims ... requires a more developed record than is available on a motion to dismiss. ....

Plaintiffs allege that Henson removed B.A.P. from class due to the message on her shirt, Melton did not allow her to return to class because of this message, and both Melton and Henson told B.A.P. she could not wear the shirt to school going forward. The Amended Complaint does not, however, supply specific facts and context about Livingston Academy and the surrounding community at the time Melton and Henson took these actions. Without this context, the Court cannot determine whether Melton and Henson reasonably forecasted that the message on B.A.P.’s shirt would cause substantial disruption or interference with the rights of other students. Accordingly, B.A.P.’s First Amendment claims against Melton and Henson will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Alabama Legislature Passes Bill On Bathrooms and LGBT Instruction In Public Schools

Yesterday the Alabama legislature gave final passage to, and sent to the governor for her signature, HB322 (full text). The bill, with certain exceptions, requires:

A public K-12 school shall require every multiple occupancy restroom or changing area designated for student use to be used by individuals based on their biological sex.

The bill also provides:

... [I]ndividuals providing classroom instruction to students in kindergarten through the fifth grade at a public K-12 school shall not engage in classroom discussion or provide classroom instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.