Academy School District No. 20 votes to join School District 49 lawsuit over transgender participation policy

The Academy School District No. 20 Board of Education voted to join the federal lawsuit School District 49 v. Sullivan (case number cited at the meeting as 25-CV-1463), approving participation by a 4-1 vote after a public discussion of costs, timing and legal effects.

The board's action followed a presentation and Q&A with the district's superintendent, the deputy chief financial officer and two attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case. President Shandy called the agenda item and the board discussed whether joining the suit would protect the district from separate complaints or litigation related to a forthcoming district policy on transgender student participation in athletics.

"The overall cost of this litigation that we are estimating, and this is through a trial ... is $1,500,000," said Mr. Ellis, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff group. He told the board he expected Academy District 20's share, under the draft engagement agreement, to be "probably under $300,000 ... actually closer to about $250,000 or 240." Mr. Ellis said the near-term cost through briefing on an anticipated motion to dismiss would be "on the order of probably $60,000 total," payable over the next three months.

Deputy Chief Financial Officer Becky Allen told the board that the district's adopted 2025-26 budget does not include the litigation cost and said any immediate payments would come from the district's unassigned fund balance. Allen said the district's unassigned fund balance is projected at about $30,000,000 and estimated the district's pro rata share at roughly $160,000 in an example scenario; she calculated that amount as about 0.5% of that unassigned balance. The board's adopted budget number mentioned during the meeting was $588,635,292, and President Shandy said a roughly $125,000 annual share would be about 0.02% of that adopted budget.

Board members also asked whether joining the federal lawsuit would discourage or delay separate complaints filed with state administrative bodies. Mr. Murray, the other attorney representing the plaintiffs, and Mr. Ellis said that while joining federally would not bar somebody from filing a new complaint, courts and administrative bodies commonly defer or stay subsidiary proceedings while a related federal case is active. The attorneys referenced potential legal questions concerning Title IX and the Colorado Civil Rights Act and said federal courts commonly resolve such conflicts early in litigation.

The board asked about timing and deadlines. Attorneys told the board they had asked prospective participants to give a firm yes or no by a June 24 deadline to allow amendment of the complaint before defendants' current response deadline, which they identified as July 16. The attorneys said Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of complaints and that adding parties after the defendants file a motion to dismiss would require leave of court and be more difficult.

Board members pressed on other cost elements. The attorneys said the estimate included attorney fees, expert witness costs, public relations and out-of-pocket expenses; attorney rates referenced during the meeting included $600 per hour for one senior attorney and about $560 per hour for another. They said the firm has historically limited annual fee increases to no more than 5% and that the litigation cost estimate was an outer-band worst-case projection intended to avoid surprises.

The board discussed CHASA's bylaws (bylaw 810.1 as referenced by the board), which the deputy CFO noted could create an additional fee exposure if CHASA invoked a fee-shifting clause for members. The attorneys said that obligation would be legally separate from any plaintiffs' engagement agreement and that they had not heard CHASA invoke that clause to date; they advised the board to consult the district's general counsel about any contractual obligations.

After discussion, a motion to approve joining School District 49 v. Sullivan passed on a roll-call vote: Vice President Khan, Director Wilburn, Director Payne and President Shandy voted yes; Director Yanez voted no. The board did not identify the motion's maker and seconder in the public roll call recorded in the transcript.

The board voted with the direction that further details about the engagement letter, pro rata percentages and timing be finalized before additional financial commitments were made. Superintendent Haber and Deputy CFO Allen asked to have follow-up information from the plaintiffs' counsel addressed to the district's legal and finance staff so those items could be resolved before payments beyond the immediate near-term spend were required.

The meeting adjourned after the vote.