Hollidaysburg LGBTQ+ Display Lawsuit, Federal Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss as Moot After Teachers Amend Complaint

Two Hollidaysburg Area School District (HASD) teachers, proceeding under the pseudonyms Jane Doe and Jane Roe, are challenging the district’s Policy 321.1, which prohibits classroom and school displays related to sexual orientation or gender identity. On or about October 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines denied the district’s latest motion to dismiss as moot because the teachers had filed an amended complaint. The defendants may now file a new motion to dismiss aimed at the revised pleading.

This denial is procedural. The court has not decided whether the district violated anyone’s rights. The case remains active, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement and no claim form.

Quick Facts: Jane Doe v. Hollidaysburg Area School District LGBTQ+ Display Lawsuit

Detail	Information
Case	Jane Doe et al. v. Hollidaysburg Area School District et al.
Court	U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Case number	3:2026-cv-01142
Filing date	June 16, 2026
Judge	Stephanie L. Haines
Plaintiffs	Jane Doe and Jane Roe (two HASD teachers proceeding anonymously)
Defendants	Hollidaysburg Area School District; Superintendent Curtis Whitesel; Principal Dale McCall; Title IX Coordinator Benjamin Caldwell
Policy challenged	Policy 321.1 (adopted October 2025), restricting displays related to sexual orientation or gender identity
Latest development	Motion to dismiss denied as moot (on or about October 6, 2026) after an amended complaint was filed
Class status	Putative class action; no class certified
Current status	Active litigation, early stage
Settlement	None
Claim form	None. No settlement or certified class exists

What the Hollidaysburg Teachers Allege

The teachers allege that Policy 321.1, passed unanimously by the school board in October 2025, bans flags, banners, posters, signs, stickers, pins, and similar materials that “advocate concerning sexual orientation or gender identity” in classrooms, school buildings, and school activities.

They claim the policy was enforced against LGBTQ+-related décor, including pride flags and a rainbow-colored mathematical pi symbol, while religious and other messages were allowed to remain.

The complaint asserts discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees and students, selective enforcement, and violations of federal civil rights laws, including Title IX and constitutional protections. The plaintiffs seek:

1. An injunction against the policy
2. Damages exceeding $150,000 each
3. Attorney fees
4. District-wide Title IX training
5. LGBTQ+ sensitivity training for employees

The teachers are proceeding anonymously, stating they fear harm if publicly identified. The defendants did not oppose that request. These allegations are disputed and have not been proven.

The District’s Position

The district maintains that Policy 321.1 applies equally to messaging for or against LGBTQ+ topics, that schools may regulate teacher speech and classroom décor, and that no employment discrimination occurred. The defendants have also argued that the teachers did not allege enough facts to establish constitutional violations and that classroom displays by public-school teachers can be government speech rather than protected private speech.

Timeline of the Hollidaysburg LGBTQ+ Display Lawsuit

Date	Development
October 2025	School board adopts Policy 321.1
June 16, 2026	Teachers file the putative class action
August 2026	Judge Haines denies the first motion to dismiss, finding the parties had not completed the required good-faith conferral, and sets procedures for an amended complaint or a new motion
September 2026	Defendants file a new motion to dismiss
On or about October 6, 2026	Court denies the motion as moot because the teachers filed an amended complaint
Current	Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss; no class certified; no trial date

What the Latest Ruling Means

A denial as moot is not a ruling on the strength of the teachers’ claims. When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, it replaces the earlier one, so a motion aimed at the old complaint no longer has anything to decide. The defendants can challenge the new complaint with another motion.

The ruling does not mean the teachers have won, and it does not mean the court has found the policy unlawful.

Why It Is Called a Putative Class Action

A putative class action is one in which plaintiffs ask the court to let them represent a larger group with similar claims. The group does not become a legal class unless the court certifies it. No certification order has been issued here, so no other teachers, employees, or students are currently represented by the case.

What Happens Next

Because an amended complaint is now on file, the defendants may respond with a new motion to dismiss or an answer. If the case proceeds, the likely stages are:

1. Further pleadings and motions on the amended complaint
2. Discovery, including exchange of documents, information, and testimony
3. Class certification, if the plaintiffs continue to seek class treatment
4. Dispositive motions, such as summary judgment
5. Settlement discussions or trial

No trial date has been set. There is currently no way for other individuals to join or file claims.

Is There a Settlement or Claim Form?

No. There is no settlement, claims administrator, claim form, or filing deadline. Be cautious of any website claiming to collect claims for this lawsuit. If you believe you were affected, keep relevant records such as policies, emails, directives from administrators, and photographs of displays. Individual employment or civil-rights claims may carry their own legal deadlines that this lawsuit does not automatically preserve, so consider speaking with a licensed attorney.

For general information on how settlements work, see How To Claim A Lawsuit Settlement?.

Why This Case Matters

Outcomes in teacher-speech and equal-protection cases often turn on whether a regulation is viewpoint-neutral, whether it is applied selectively, and how courts balance school authority over the educational environment against individual constitutional rights. This case involves allegations about one Pennsylvania school district’s policy, and any ruling will depend on its specific facts and the claims actually asserted.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Hollidaysburg LGBTQ+ display case a certified class action?

 No. It is a putative class action. No class has been certified.

Who filed the lawsuit against Hollidaysburg Area School District? 

Two district teachers proceeding under the pseudonyms Jane Doe and Jane Roe.

What does Policy 321.1 prohibit according to the complaint? 

Displays in classrooms, school buildings, and school activities (flags, banners, posters, signs, stickers, pins, and similar materials) related to sexual orientation or gender identity.

Why was the most recent motion to dismiss denied? 

Judge Haines ruled it moot because the teachers filed an amended complaint. The defendants may file a new motion addressing the revised complaint.

Did the judge rule that the district violated the teachers’ rights? 

No. The ruling was procedural and made no finding of liability.

Is there a settlement or claim form?

 No. Neither exists.

Can other teachers or employees join right now?

 No. Class certification has not been granted, and no claims process exists.

What is the case number?

 3:2026-cv-01142, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Sources

• Docket and filings, Jane Doe et al. v. Hollidaysburg Area School District et al., No. 3:2026-cv-01142 (W.D. Pa.)
• WTAJ via AOL, report on the August 2026 ruling: https://www.aol.com/articles/judge-denies-motion-dismiss-hollidaysburg-184539000.html
• WTAJ via AOL, report on the September 2026 motion to dismiss: https://www.aol.com/articles/hollidaysburg-school-district-files-motion-193424000.html
• WJAC, reporting on the June 2026 filing and the October 2026 order

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, Legal Content Researcher.

This article is for informational purposes only. AllAboutLawyer.com is a consumer legal information site, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. Court filings are the authoritative source. Individuals with questions about civil-rights or employment claims should consult a licensed attorney.