Less publicized, however, are the impacts of parental notification policies on LEAs’ bargaining obligations, as provided under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). The EERA requires LEAs to notify the union and negotiate before making any decision, such as policy revisions, that would result in a change in employee working conditions, including job duties, discipline or performance standards. And, even if an LEA’s decision does not trigger a duty to bargain, LEAs must still bargain over any effects that the decision would have on represented employee working conditions before the decision is implemented. Because parental notification policies typically require union employees to affirmatively disclose a student’s transgender status — potentially in violation of California law, such as AB 1955 — unions have argued that the decision to adopt these policies, as well as the effects of the decision, must be bargained before the policies are adopted or put into effect. There are also concerns that, if the policies are illegal, the EERA forbids their enactment in the first place.
The Rocklin decision addresses this issue. Rocklin USD’s board adopted a parental notification policy in September 2023 that affirmatively required certain employees, including teachers, to notify parents of their students’ request to be identified by a gender different from their biological sex, request to use a name or pronouns different than their biological sex, or request to use facilities or programs not aligned with their biological sex. The amendments also added certain exceptions to the district’s policies governing student privacy. The newly amended policy was adopted without negotiation, despite the Rocklin Teachers Professional Association’s (RTPA) demand to bargain over the decision and its effects, as well as its concerns over the policy’s legality.
Around the same time, RTPA filed an unfair practice charge with PERB alleging that the district’s failure to bargain over the decision and its effects violated the EERA. After the charge was filed, the district offered to bargain the effects of the policy’s adoption but declined to rescind the policy or bargain over the district’s decision to adopt it. RTPA refused to bargain the effects after the adoption, instead demanding that the policy be rescinded until bargaining over the decision and its effects had been completed. The district declined.
After the district appealed an adverse ruling from an administrative law judge (ALJ), the case proceeded to PERB’s board. Like the ALJ, the board found the decision to adopt the parental notification policy as well as its effects were both negotiable and that the district did not provide RTPA with adequate notice or opportunity to bargain. The board found the policy was negotiable because it represented a material change in teachers’ existing job duties, namely by requiring them to disclose confidential information regarding students’ transgender status. The board found this change particularly significant since the board determined, after a lengthy analysis, that the district’s parental notification policy violated California law, including AB 1955. The policy therefore presented teachers with a catch-22. That is, teachers were stuck between potential discipline from the district for failing to make a required disclosure and legal jeopardy — including the potential loss of their teaching credential — for unlawfully disclosing a student’s private information pursuant to a prohibited policy.
Additionally, the PERB’s board found that, even if the district was not required to bargain the decision to adopt the parental notification policy, the decision could not be implemented without first bargaining its effects. The district argued that it was no longer obligated to bargain the effects, since RTPA had refused to negotiate effects unless the policy was first rescinded. However, the board disagreed, finding that, because illegal provisions cannot be negotiated, the parties could not lawfully negotiate the policy or its effects and thus the EERA barred its implementation.
The PERB board’s decision has since been appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. However, assuming it stands, the decision provides a compelling template for unions to challenge other parental notification policies moving forward.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Should you have questions about how this topic affects your district or COE, please contact CSBA’s Legal Services at legalservices@csba.org or (916) 669-1551.