Title IX is a 53 year old federal civil rights law intended to protect the rights of biological girls to fair treatment in academic and athletic programs that receive federal funding. On January 9, 2025, a federal court order was issued in the case of Tennessee v Cardona requiring all educational agencies in the US that receive federal funds – including every school district in Washington State - to immediately comply with the original meaning of Title IX. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2025/2025-1-title-ix.pdf
Citing the Tennessee V Cardona federal court order, on February 4, 2025, the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter notifying all K-12 schools in the United States that they needed to immediately comply with the original meaning of Title IX. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/title-ix-enforcement-directive-dcl-109477.pdf
In addition, based on the Tennessee v Cardona court order, on February 5, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order which states: “Under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX), educational institutions receiving Federal funds cannot deny women an equal opportunity to participate in sports… Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/
But instead of complying with Title IX as required by federal law, a federal court order, a Dear Colleague Letter and a Presidential Order, Chris Reykdal has so far refused to comply with Title IX – falsely claiming that Washington state civil rights Policy 3211 has priority over federal civil rights laws such as Title IX. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/about-ospi/news-center/news-releases/state-superintendent-chris-reykdals-statement-president-trumps-order-discriminate-against-trans
In fact, any State law that directly contradict federal laws is null and void under Article VI Section II of the US Constitution.
Since Policy 3211 requires allowing biological males to enter girls bathrooms and girls lockers rooms and participate in girls sports while Title IX prohibits allowing biological males from entering girls bathrooms or girls locker rooms or participating in girls sports, Policy 3211 is null and void.
Based on Reykdal’s refusal to comply with the Tennessee v Cardona federal court order, on February 28, 2025, the Washington Parents Network submitted a 99 page Title IX complaint with the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) against the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) for violating the Title IX rights of over 500,000 biological girls here in Washington state. Here is a link to our Title IX complaint: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/washington-parents-network-title-ix-complaint
This complaint is one of the most serious Title IX complaints ever submitted. It provides evidence of millions of violations of Title IX at thousands of schools in Washington state during the past 8 years under a state-required policy called Washington Policy 3211. It was the first time in the 53 year history of Title IX that an entire State Department of Education was accused of violating Title IX.
Our Title IX complaint was submitted via the National Department of Education OCR Online complaint portal via this web page: https://ocrcas.ed.gov/
In filing our complaint, we followed the 32 page Title IX Complaint Process Manual (CPM) which can be downloaded at this link: https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf
On page 7, the CPM manual states: “OCR will promptly acknowledge in writing receipt of the complaint and provide a Consent Form to the complainant. OCR will also inform the complainant that the complaint will be evaluated to determine whether OCR will proceed to investigate the allegations and that further communications about complaint processing will be forthcoming. “
I submitted the required signed consent form and the automatic reply from the National Office of Civil Rights indicated that our complaint had been assigned to the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights. I therefore also sent a PDF of our 99 page Title IX complaint to the OCR Seattle Branch via email and asked them to reply with any additional information that might be needed using this email address. (
Sadly, the Seattle Office of Civil Rights failed to respond to our Title IX complaint. I waited more than one week for a reply, which I never got from either the national or Seattle OCR office. Therefore, on Friday March 7, 2025, I began calling both the national OCR office (800-421-3481) and the Seattle Branch office (206-607-1600).
No one answered either phone number. Instead both numbers triggered a phone message recorder. I therefore left several phone messages asking them to return my phone call, or email me, and advise me of the status of our complaint. No one ever returned any of these phone calls.
Therefore, on Tuesday March 11, 2025, I emailed the Seattle office at the above email address again asking for the status of our complaint. I have still not gotten a reply to this email.
My first visit to the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights
On Thursday March 13, 2025, I drove to Seattle and brought a written copy of our 99 page Title IX complaint to the Seattle Office which is in Room 3310 on the 33rd floor of the Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle. The door to the room was locked. I looked through the glass window in the door and it appeared that no one was there. I knocked on the door but no one answered.
Here is a picture of the Seattle OCR office - taken through the glass window in the OCR office door - showing that no one was at the receptionist desk (on the left) or in any of the office cubicles:
I then rang the door bell button to the left of the door and waited. After a few minutes, a young woman opened the door and let me in. There was an eery silence in this extremely large office confirming that no one was there other than this young lady.
I introduced myself to her and explained that two weeks ago, I had submitted a 99 page Title IX compliant. I asked why no one had replied to my complaint or returned any of my emails or phone calls. The woman did not give her name and she appeared to be very nervous. She stated that they could not return phone calls or emails because their “phone lines were down and not working” and “their Internet was down and not working.”
I asked her if I could speak to someone about the status of my complaint. She stated that there was no one at the office who I could speak to about my complaint. However, I could write a note and she would give my note and the printed copy of my 99 page complaint (which I had brought) to her supervisor who would then get back in touch with me. She did not say who her superviser was.
I wrote a note asking for someone at the Seattle Office to contact me as soon as possible regarding the status of our complaint - and I provided both my email address and phone number. The young woman took my complaint with the note attached and I left. I did get a chance to look down the hallway past the receptionist desk and I could not see a single person other than this young woman at this very large office.
Sadly, I did not hear back from the Seattle office on Friday March 14th. Given the significance of our complaint, I began to think that something was very wrong at the Seattle branch of the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. I therefore began to do research on the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights. Here is the result of my research:
Number of Federal Workers at the Seattle Branch of the OCR
As of September, 2024, 568 people worked in OCR, according to the FedScope federal workforce database.
Of these 568 federal OCR workers, 25 people are employed at the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights
On Tuesday March 11, 2025, the Department of Education sent emails notifying employees that all Department of Education offices would be closed on Wednesday March 12. All offices were required to reopen on Thursday, March 13th at which time in-person presence was supposed to resume.
The email stated that 7 OCR branch offices would be closed and that the entire staff at these 7 offices would be laid off and placed on administrative leave starting March 21, with their final day of employment on June 9. These OCR offices were Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston and Cleveland.
OCR offices in Atlanta, Denver, Kansas City and Seattle were supposed to remain open, as well as the OCR headquarters in Washington, D.C. and it appears from the table below that no one at any of these offices were laid off. Below is a table of all of the number of employees at each of the OCR offices before and after the closing of the 7 offices on June 9, 2025:
|
State |
OCR Employees Sept 2024 |
June 9 2025 |
|
California |
56 |
0 |
|
Colorado |
36 |
36 |
|
DC |
71 |
71 |
|
Georgia |
46 |
46 |
|
Illinios |
51 |
0 |
|
Kansas? |
12 |
12 |
|
Maryland? |
21 |
21 |
|
Massachusetts |
30 |
0 |
|
Missouri? |
13 |
13 |
|
New Jersey ? |
19 |
19 |
|
New York |
25 |
0 |
|
Ohio |
42 |
0 |
|
Pennsylvania |
33 |
0 |
|
Texas |
49 |
0 |
|
Seattle Washington |
25 |
25 |
|
Total - Known State Location |
529 |
243 |
|
Total - Unknown Location |
39 |
39 |
|
Total – all OCR employees |
568 |
282 |
In short, there are 25 people at the Seattle office. Of the 25 people in the Seattle Office, 19 are members of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252 union and 6 are not. All 25 people in the Seattle Office are classified as “Fulltime Employees, Eligible to participate in Telework.” This means they only need to show up at the office about 4 days a month. Their average salary is $138,350 up from $120,000 in 2020. Thus, the total salaries for 2024 were 25 times $138,350 equals $3.46 million dollars. Nationally, there were 568 OCR employees before the March 11 2025 Reduction in Force and 282 OCR employees after the reduction in force in June 9 2025.
History of Teleworkers at the Office of Civil Rights
The use of telework by federal agencies skyrocketed in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. An August 2024 report by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) found that the federal government employed 2.3 million non-military federal workers, 1.1 million (46%) telework-eligible federal workers. Here is a link to the 3,000 page report:
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/OMB-Report-to-Congress-on-Telework-and-Real-Property.pdf
Table 1 of this report broke down teleworkers by Department. The Department of Education, which includes the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), had 4,245 employees of which 4,163 (98%) were telework-eligible. The Department of Education officials claimed that these telework – eligible employees spent about 40% of their time in-person at their federal offices. However, their union contract stated that these employees only needed to work in-person 4 days a month (once a week).
When the Biden administration attempted to increase “in-person work” to 10 days per month (twice a week), the Education Department union objected claiming that it would interfer with other obligations their union members had taken on. In May 2024, Biden Education Secretary Miguel Cardona announced that all Education staff will have to work in person at least five days per pay period beginning May 20. That includes the 2,400 employees in the American Federation of Government Employees bargaining unit who protested the Return to Inperson work order.
Sheria Smith, AFGE Local 252 union president, who works at the Office of Civil Rights stated: “To be clear, Secretary Cardona has not negotiated this change with our union.. employees’ lives have changed since March 2020, and many have moved to more affordable suburbs or have become caregivers of elderly family or children. They cannot change on a dime, she said, and they don’t need to be public facing to do their jobs.”
Note: Sheria was one of the people fired when the Dallas branch of OCR was closed. Here is an image of her being interviewed by Rachel Maddow:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1360009028372159
Sheria falsely accused the Department of Education as targetting “women and people of color.” In fact, what really happened is that the Department of Education closed the entire Texas office. Sheria being fired had nothing to do with being either a woman or a person of color.
Reading the Department of Education portion of the 3,000 page report, it appears that almost none of the 4000 plus federal workers at the Department of Education are doing any in-person work. Here is a quote from page A1099: “Pursuant to 5 CFR §531.605, participants must, at a minimum, physically report into the official ED worksite twice each (two week) pay period.”
Note that this statement does not indicate that the worker needs to spend the entire day at their office. Only that they physically “report into” their OCR office for some length of time once a week. In addition, there is a provision that employees can choose to not show up at all of it is not practical for them to appear in person. Here is a quote from page A1105 of the union contract: “If it is not practicable for the employee to report to the ED worksite, the employee may not be required to report.”
The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the US Department of Education and the AFGE Local 252 union begins on page A1118
Article 44 Telework Provisions begins on page A A1124. On page A1144, the agreement states: “At a minimum, an employee must be able to communicate by telephone and by email with the supervisor and other employees during the telework day and have access to broadband internet at the alternative worksite.”
This provision appears to being violated by the Seattle Department of Education Office of Civil Rights staff who are not responding to either official OCR phone calls or official OCR emails and did not respond for more than two weeks.
Page A1151 shows the typical OCR work day as being 5 1/2 hours long:
President Trump signs Presidential Order ending Telework at all federal agencies
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum telling the heads of all federal departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government to, “as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary. This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/return-to-in-person-work/
President Trump stated “You have to show up to work. You have to go to your office and work. Otherwise you’re not going to have a job.”
It appears that the entire Seattle Branch of the OCR is ignoring this Presidential Order.
On January 27, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memo giving agencies until February 7, 2025, to submit their plans for an office return to OPM and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/agency-return-to-office-implementation-plans.pdf
The plan should describe an agency’s approach to getting workers back to a physical office. Implementation plans are required to do the following:
- Describe the steps agencies will take to refine telework agreements.
- Provide timelines for the return of all eligible employees to in-person work as “expeditiously as possible” including date of compliance with the order.
- Describe steps agencies will take to bring Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) into compliance with the presidents’ orders, consistent with applicable laws.
As for the timeline for the return to in-person work, OPM recommended that agencies set a target date of 30 days for full compliance with the order, subject to any exclusions granted by the agency and any collective bargaining obligations. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is requiring workers to be back within 30 days, while the State Department gave workers until March 1 before canceling all telework.
Reduction in Force Process and Timeline
On February 26, 2025 OMB issued a followup Memorandum providing guidance of Reduction in Force (RIF) processes. Here is a link to this 7 page memorandum: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-agency-rif-and-reorganization-plans-requested-by-implementing-the-president-s-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative.pdf
Here are quotes from this memorandum:
“The federal government is costly, inefficient, and deeply in debt. At the same time, it is not producing results for the American public. Instead, tax dollars are being siphoned off to fund unproductive and unnecessary programs that benefit radical interest groups while hurting hard-working American citizens. The American people registered their verdict on the bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy on November 5, 2024 by voting for President Trump and his promises to sweepingly reform the federal government.”
“Affected employees will be placed on administrative leave starting Friday, March 21 and will receive full pay and benefits until June 9, 90 days after the department announced its RIF plans.”
“Agencies should align closures and/or relocation of bureaus and offices with agency return-to-office actions to avoid multiple relocation benefit costs for individual employees.”
“Agencies should then submit a Phase 2 ARRP to OMB and OPM for review and approval no later than April 14, 2025. Phase 2 plans should be planned for implementation by September 30, 2025. “
“Agencies should continue sending monthly progress reports each month on May 14, 2025, June 16, 2025, and July 16, 2025. All plans and reports requested by this memorandum should be submitted to OPM at
See also: https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-initiates-reduction-force
Reduction in Force Rules
OPM has a 119-page handbook that details how a reduction in force (RIF) and other workforce restructuring must be done. For agencies that move forward with a RIF, they may need to notify unions or Congress, and then they must draft official notices to send to affected employees. These RIF notices must include certain information like the reasons for the RIF and the effective date. Employees must be given 60 days' notice of their end date, unless OPM grants a waiver to shorten that period to 30 days.
A Second Visit to the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights
Based on all of the above information, all 25 of the federal workers in the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights should still be working and should have responded to our Title IX complaint. In order to determine why they have not responded to our complaint, I paid a second visit to the Office of Civil Rights on Monday March 17, 2025 at 10:30 am where I asked the following questions:
What is the name of the person who is there? This time, it was a man who answered the door. He said his name was Mr. Johnson. Unlike the previous week, this man refused to let me into the office. Here is a picture of the man named Mr. Johnson blocking the door to the Office of Civil Rights while I am asking him questions:
I asked Mr. Johnson if our complaint had been given to his supervisor and he said it had. I asked for his supervisors name and he said it was Mr. Kauffman. I asked for Mr. Kauffman’s first name and he refused to give it to me. I asked why Mr. Kauffman has not yet replied to our complaint and he said that Mr. Kauffman likely was busy with other complaints. I asked when Mr. Kauffman would contact me. Mr. Johnson said he had no idea.
I asked if I could have Mr. Kauffmans phone number and email address and Mr. Johnson said no. I asked how many people worked at the Seattle OCR and Mr. Johnson refused to answer. I asked if any people in the Seattle office had been fired or retired in the previous few weeks and again he refused to answer. I asked how many worked remotely from home and again he refused to answer. I asked how often they came into the office and again he refused to answer.
I asked if the internet and the phones were down or were working and he said that they were sometimes down and sometimes working but at the moment the phone and internet were not working. Finally, I asked if I could at least get the case number for our case. Mr. Johnson then went back to his desk and came back with our case number which is OCR Case Number 10254050. I then drove back to my home where to my surprise, I got an email from the Seattle OCR Supervisor named David Kauffman.
Here is the content of Mr. Kauffman’s extremely brief email:
“Dear Mr. Spring –
We are in receipt of your complaint. We are currently evaluating it consistent with the requirements of OCR’s Case Processing Manual. We will be in touch as needed moving forward. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me via email at my phone number below.
Sincerely, David Kauffman, Supervisory Attorney
Office for Civil Rights, US Department of Education”
His email appeared to be in violation of the OCR Complaint Process manual which states on page 7: “OCR will promptly acknowledge in writing receipt of the complaint and provide a Consent Form to the complainant. OCR will also inform the complainant that the complaint will be evaluated to determine whether OCR will proceed to investigate the allegations and that further communications about complaint processing will be forthcoming. “
Mr. Kauffman’s failure for more than two weeks to acknowledge in writing receipt of our complaint - and even after two weeks - still not having determined whether our complaint complied with the Case Processing Manual was itself a gross violation of the CPM requirement for a “Prompt” acknowledgement in writing of our complaint.
It also appeared that Mr. Kauffman himself was failing to comply with or even recognize the urgency of the January 9, 2025 Title IX federal court order. Mr. Kauffman was also failing to comply with the February 4, 2025 US Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter. In addition, Mr. Kauffman was failing to comply with the January 20, 2025, President Trump Presidential Memorandum requiring all federal employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis. In addition, Mr. Kauffman was obviously failing to comply with the February 5, 2025 Presidential Order requiring enforcement of Title IX.
I therefore emailed Mr. Kauffman back the same day (Monday March 17) warning him that if he did not take some kind of action by Thursday March 20, 2025 at 5 pm, that I would be forced to take further action.
Here is the text of my detailed email to Mr. Johnson:
EMAIL REPLY FROM DAVID SPRING TO MR KAUFFMAN
Dear Mr. Kauffman,
Thank you for your email today, March 17th. I was at your office in Seattle today and your associate, Mr. Johnson, gave me the case number for our case which is OCR Case Number 10254050. I appreciate you evaluating our complaint to make sure it is consistent with the requirements of OCR’s Case Processing Manual. I have carefully read that Case Processing Manual at least three times and I believe our Title IX complaint does comply with its requirements. If it is lacking in any way, I hope you will email me back as soon as possible so that we can correct any shortcomings.
At the same time, I want to make it clear that this case requires the need for urgency. As I hope you are aware, every educational agency in Washington State, including OSPI and WIAA, were required to comply with the January 9, 2025 federal court order in the Title IX case of Tennessee v Cardona. Here is a link to this 15 page federal court order: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2025/2025-1-title-ix.pdf
Washington State OSPI and WIAA should have complied with this court order on January 10, 2025. Instead, both have continued with “gender identity” policies (allowing biological males in girls sports, girls bathrooms and girls locker rooms) that the federal judge stated “Rendered Title IX to be meaningless.”
Based on the January 9, 2025 federal court ruling, on February 5, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order which states: “Under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX), educational institutions receiving Federal funds cannot deny women an equal opportunity to participate in sports… Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.”
Here is a link to this Presidential Order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/
In addition, on February 4, 2025, the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter notifying all K-12 schools in the United States that they needed to immediately comply with the original meaning of Title IX. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/title-ix-enforcement-directive-dcl-109477.pdf
In response, Washington Superintendent, Chris Reykdal has repeatedly stated that he will not comply with either the Presidential Order or the Dear Colleague letter – claiming that they do not have the force of law. In fact, they do have the force of law when they are enforcing Title IX which is an Act of Congress and backed up by a federal court order on January 9. 2025. Reykdal has also falsely claimed in several letters to school board members that Washington state civil rights laws have priority over federal civil rights laws such as Title IX. This is a clear violation of Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution. It is also a violation of Reykdal’s Oath of Office.
It is now more than two months since the January 9, 2025 federal court order was issued. It is also more than two weeks since February 28, 2025, when we filed our Title IX complaint with your office. Chris Reykdal’s violations of Title IX have been occurring ever since he took office 8 years ago and they are continuing to occur on a daily basis. His statements and actions severely harm the Title IX rights of more than one million students in more than 2,000 schools here in Washington State.
It is therefore essential that the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights investigate this matter immediately and take action to enforce Title IX here in Washington state.
I understand that there are rules and procedures that need to be followed and that ultimate enforcement may not occur until after all of the procedures have been completed. However, every day delayed is one more day that the rights of more than a million students in Washington State will continue to be violated. This is why there is a need for urgency in this case.
Which leads to my final point. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 was passed by Congress to clarify that Title IX and its associated rights are to be interpreted broadly to include state and well as local education agencies. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/s557/text/enr
Here are quotes from this Act of Congress:
“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is amended by adding at the end the following new sections:
"INTERPRETATION OF 'PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY'
Section 908: For the purposes of this title, the term 'program or activity' and 'program' mean all of the operations of—
"(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
"(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;
... any other entity which is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3); any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance,”
I realize that our complaint may be the first Title IX complaint ever filed against an entire state agency (Washington State OSPI). However, the above 1987 Act of Congress makes it clear that Title IX does apply to state as well as local agencies. To the extent that the Complaint Process Manual (CPM) may not address violations of Title IX committed by state agencies, any such CPM shortsightedness must be waived – as we requested in the 4 page cover letter to our Title IX complaint.
Given that there has already been a two week delay in just getting a reply email and a case number from your office, and given that there is an outstanding federal court order that is being violated in this case and given the seriousness of this case - that the Title IX rights of more than one million students in our state are being violated on a daily basis, I expect a decision from your office clearly stating what additional information you may need for our Title IX complaint to comply with the requirements of OCR’s Case Processing Manual by 5 pm Thursday March 20, 2025.
I further expect that by 5 pm Thursday March 20, 2025, you will provide us with an approximate Timeline of Dates by which your office will take actions to achieve compliance with Title IX here in Washington state.
The Washington Parents Network represents more than 2,700 parents here in Washington state. I am one of these parents. We have waited through 8 long years of OSPI and WIAA blatantly violating the Title IX rights of our students. We deserve to know how much longer our students will have their Title IX rights violated by OSPI and the WIAA.
Thank you for your prompt attention to our Title IX complaint.
Sincerely,
David Spring M. Ed.
Director, Washington Parents Network
(END OF MY EMAIL TO MR. KAUFFMAN)
Unfortunately, it is now Friday March 21, 2025 and I still have not heard back from Mr. Kauffman.
Additional Title IX Enforcement Information
On February 12, 2025, the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights announced investigations of two statewide athletic associations which had publicly announced plans to violate the Title IX rights of girls and women. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-launches-title-ix-investigations-two-athletic-associations
Here is a quote:
“The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights today announced directed investigations into the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), both of which publicly announced plans to violate federal antidiscrimination laws related to girls’ and women’s sports. This includes the possibility of allowing male athletes to compete in women’s sports and use women’s intimate facilities… History does not look kindly on entities and states that actively opposed the enforcement of federal civil rights laws that protect women and girls from discrimination and harassment… State laws do not override federal antidiscrimination laws, and these entities and their member schools remain subject to Title IX. “
On February 24, 2025, two female athletes, Carol Brown and Anne Simpson, published an editorial in the Seattle Times pointing out that WIAA policies violate Title IX. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/youth-sports-in-wa-allowing-trans-athletes-on-girls-teams-violates-title-ix/
Here are quotes from this editorial:
“We are the first generation of female athletes to benefit from that groundbreaking legislation guaranteeing young women their rightful place in the classroom and on the playing field... Thanks to Title IX protections on the basis of sex, we were given a mostly level playing field where fair sport and safety governed the female category.”
“Today in Washington, the playing field is neither fair nor safe for girls. Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association’s policy on transgender athletes, established in 2007, allows students to compete on the team that corresponds to their gender identity, and gives boys access to girls teams and locker rooms. Our state’s female athletes are losing opportunities to progress to higher levels of competition and potential collegiate scholarships. The WIAA is ignoring the science that has proved time and again that male athletic advantage is real and endures even when testosterone is medically suppressed. The WIAA, whose mission is to govern fair, safe sport, is telling all of our young female athletes that boys are more important than they are.”
“The WIAA’s current transgender policy is in violation of federal Title IX law. If this policy is not updated to protect female athletes from discrimination and the right to privacy in their locker rooms, the association, their board members, school boards, individual school athletic departments and coaches are at risk of being sued. This is currently happening in Connecticut, where courts have ruled that Title IX, as a federal law, supersedes any state laws.”
“To be clear, this means that any WIAA district, any individual athletic department, any school board and even individual schools could be subject to a lawsuit by any athlete claiming a Title IX violation. Female athletes on teams who compete against a school/team with an athlete assigned male at birth, but who identifies as female, can bring a lawsuit. Title IX is the federal law and WIAA cannot hide behind Washington state law.”
Chris Reykdal and OSPI have repeatedly refused to comply with Title IX
In February and March 2025, in several letters and press conferences, Washington Superintendent Chris Reykdal openly admitted that he will refuse to comply with the Dear Colleague Letter and the Presidential Order – both of which are simply attempting to enforce the January 9 Title IX federal court order.
OSPI violation of Title IX Example 1
On March 6, 2025, Reykdal posted a YouTube video in which he falsely claimed that the 10th Amendment (States Rights) meant that he did not have to comply with federal civil rights laws like Title IX:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IrJK1RpawU
Here is a quote from the above video:
“Congress has adopted civil rights protections and it's really important that we uphold that, but our state and any state gets the ability to add additional protections, we can go beyond the federal minimums. So, in education whether it's student evaluation, teacher evaluation, civil rights protection for our students, how we deploy in our schools, how many school districts we have, all of that all of that is our state legislature.”
In fact, Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution clearly states that when a state civl rights law or policy such as Policy 3211 directly conflicts with a federal civil rights law, such as Title IX, the federal law has priority and the state law is null and void.
OSPI Violation of Title IX Example #2: Theatening Letter to WIAA
On March 19, 2025, OSPI sent a threatening letter to Mick Hoffman, the Director of the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) warning him that if the WIAA passed Amendments #7 or #8 (which would bring WIAA into alignment with Title IX by prohibiting boys in girls sports), the WIAA would be in violation of state law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvOOEDSqs4E
The OSPI warning letter included advice from the “Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel stating that the State Attorney General could not give WIAA legal advice or representation regarding the proposed Amendment #7.
The OSPI warning letter also included a section called “OSPI Enforcement of State Antidiscrimination Law.” Here is a quote from this section of the OSPI warning letter:
“OSPI can however can share our own positions which we reach after consulting with legal counsel. Washington antidiscrimination law complies with federal civil rights law. Accordingly, any Executive Order or interpretative correspondence from the federal government cannot override the greater protections that Washington state law provides to its residents. School districts must follow state law and OSPI intends to enforce state law with these understandings.”
The OSPI warning letter to WIAA ended with a section called “WIAA Proposed Amendments.” Here is a quote from this section:
“WIAA must also follow state law and OSPI is concerned that Amendments #7 and #8 to be voted on this April would violate Washington state laws including Chapters 28A.640 and 28A.42 RCW and Chapter 392-790 WAC. We have confidence the WIAA would not implement these amendments if they were to pass in their current form.”
U.S. Dept of Education determines Maine guilty of violating Title IX
On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights notified the Maine State Department of Education that it was found to be in violation of Title IX, a federal civil rights law that bans sex-based discrimination in schools. The letter from the U.S. DOE Office for Civil Rights, said the determination is based on state policies that permit transgender girls (Biological Males) to participate in girls’ sports.
The letter gave the Maine Department of Education ten days to comply with President Trump’s executive order banning transgender girls from playing girls’ sports. Here is a link to the 10 page March 19 2025 OCR Letter to Maine: https://www.ed.gov/media/document/letter-of-finding-maine-doe-109602.pdf
Here are quotes from the letter to the Maine Department of Education:
“This letter is to inform you of the outcome of the directed investigation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) into the Maine Department of Education (MDOE), which OCR initiated on February 21, 2025 (Investigation). Title IX and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. As a recipient of federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (Department), MDOE is subject to these laws and regulations.”
“The Investigation examined whether MDOE is in continuing violation of Title IX by permitting, directing, instructing, or requiring Maine school districts to: (1) allow males to participate in female athletics (whether interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural); and (2) deny to female students (particularly, female student-athletes) access to intimate facilities on the basis of sex, such as female-only locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Based on the evidence obtained, OCR has determined the evidence supports a conclusion of noncompliance with Title IX by MDOE. OCR notes that public school districts throughout the State of Maine that receive federal financial assistance and have policies or practices that allow boys to participate in girls’ athletics programs and/or deny female students access to female-only intimate facilities, are similarly in violation of Title IX. Should MDOE fail to direct the public school districts in its jurisdiction to adopt and implement policies and practices that comply with Title IX, OCR may initiate additional investigations into such school districts.”
“MDOE has published guidance on its website, described as “best practice approaches” to promote positive school climates. Included as a best practice is a statement “students must be permitted to use the bathroom and other sex-separated facilities in accordance with or corresponding most closely to their gender identity... All other school-related rules, programs and activities must ensure that students can comply with a rule, or participate in a program or activity, consistent with their gender identity.”
“MDOE also published a Maine DOE Priority Notice dated January 21, 2025, stating in part that the Executive Order entitled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” does not inhibit the force of Maine law and “Maine SAUs are expected to abide by the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected class in…education…. Protected classes include... sexual orientation (which includes gender identity and expression)….”
“School districts in Maine relied and acted on MDOE’s published guidance and interpretations of State and federal law. Publicly available information indicates many Maine SAUs have written policies that allow male students to participate in athletic programs designated for girls or women.”
“Neither MDOE nor any other recipient of federal funds is permitted to contract... with an entity that discriminates in violation of Title IX. Thus, MDOE’s obligation to comply with Title IX (including its authority to direct SAUs to comply with Title IX) includes refusing to contract with, or arrange for services or benefits to be provided by, MPA (and directing SAUs to do the same) if MPA discriminates in violation of Title IX.”
“MDOE has chosen to interpret those laws (and issue guidance and directives to SAUs) in a way that conflicts with Title IX to the detriment of female student-athletes in violation of Title IX. In so doing, MDOE is also causing SAUs to violate Title IX.”
“Title IX simply does not permit the bait-and-switch of promising female student-athletes a girls’ competition and a girls’ locker room while actually permitting males to participate in the activity or access the space. Moreover, whether or not any male students had actually participated, a policy that would allow boys/men to participate in sports programs designated for girls/women facially violates Title IX.”
“A recipient’s obligation to comply with Title IX is not obviated or alleviated by any state or local law. 34 CFR § 106.6(b)… . Accordingly, OCR has determined the evidence supports a conclusion of noncompliance with Title IX… The federal funding of SAUs across Maine is thus at risk so long as MDOE remains out of compliance with Title IX.”
“In light of the serious facial and as-applied aspects of MDOE’s violations of Title IX, OCR will conclude that attempts to secure MDOE’s voluntary compliance are at an impasse unless MDOE executes a resolution agreement within 10 days of the date of this letter.”
“If no agreement has been executed by that date, OCR will issue to MDOE a letter of impasse that confirms MDOE’s refusal to voluntarily come into compliance with Title IX and informs MDOE that OCR will issue a letter of impending enforcement action 10 days following the letter of impasse.”
“Unless MDOE executes a resolution agreement by that time, the letter of impending enforcement action will notify MDOE that OCR is referring its non-compliance determinations to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement including termination of MDOE’s funding from the US Department of Education. “
Respectfully, Bradley R. Burke, Regional Director. March 19, 2025
Washington State OSPI Policies and Actions are Nearly Identical to Maine DOE Policies and Actions
Washington State OSPI Policy 3211 is nearly identical to Maine “gender identity” policies with the exception that while Maine school based gender identity policies are OPTIONAL, Washington State school based gender identity policies are REQUIRED. In Washington, school districts are actually prohibited from complying with Title IX.
Based on the above, on Friday, March 21, 2025, we have submitted the following complaint to the US Department of Education National Office of Civil Rights requesting an immediate Directed Investigation based on Section 402 of the Office of Civil Rights Complaint Process Manual. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf
Here is a quote from Section 402: “A directed investigation is an OCR-initiated process that allows OCR to address possible discrimination that is not currently being addressed through OCR’s complaint, compliance review or technical assistance activities. Depending on the circumstances, a directed investigation may include... conducting an expedited investigation that may result in a resolution agreement that will ensure that recipients come into compliance with the requirements of the civil rights laws and regulations enforced by OCR.”
We submitted our request for a Directed Investigation via their OCR national office via this email address:
To: US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights National Office
Date: March 21, 2025
RE: Complaint against Seattle Branch of the US Dept of Education Office of Civil Rights and Request for Immediate Directed Investigation
Dear US Department of Education National Office of Civil Rights,
On February 28, 2025, we at the Washington Parents Network filed a 99 page complaint against the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association.
Our complaint was automatically assigned to the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights (Seattle OCR). Despite numerous phone calls and emails as well as personal visits to the nearly vacant Seattle OCR, it took more than two weeks just to get a case number (which we were informed on Monday March 17, 2025 is OCR Case Number 10254050).
Since the Seattle Branch of the OCR has failed to even begin an investigation into our case, and since it appears that the Seattle Branch of the OCR is deliberately failing to comply with a January 9, 2025 Federal Court Order, a February 5 2025 Presidential Order, a Department of Education February 4, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter and failing to Comply with several sections of the OCR Complaint Processing Manual (CPM), we are asking the National Office of Civil Rights to immediately conduct a Directed Investigation of both the Seattle Branch of the DOE OCR and the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).
As we explained on our February 28, 2025 Title IX complaint, Washington State OSPI Policy 3211 is nearly identical to Maine “gender identity” policies with the exception that while Maine school based gender identity policies are OPTIONAL, Washington State school based gender identity policies are REQUIRED by OSPI to be adopted by every school district in Washington state. In Washington, school districts are actually prohibited from complying with Title IX. Here is a link to our original complaint: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/washington-parents-network-title-ix-complaint
Here is a link to the events that have occurred since February 28, 2025 which have prompted us to submit this complaint against the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights and to request an immediate Directed Investigation of the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction:
Given the failure of the Seattle Branch of the Office of Civil Rights to investigate our complaint, we ask that an investigator from the national office be assigned to investigate our complaint and that they immediately begin a Directed Investigation of Washington OSPI similar to the Directed Investigation just completed against the Maine Department of Education.
Sincerely,
David Spring M. Ed.
Director Washington Parents Network