Connect with us

Ohio

Longtime Ohio teacher disciplined for ‘controversial’ books sues school district

Published

on

Longtime Ohio teacher disciplined for ‘controversial’ books sues school district


CLERMONT COUNTY, Ohio (WXIX) – A Clermont County teacher is suing a school district after she was placed on an unpaid suspension due to four books sitting in her classroom that were deemed “controversial.”

Karen Cahall has been a teacher for New Richmond Exempted Village Schools since 1990. On Dec. 2, she filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Southern District Court of Ohio’s Western Division against the district she has served in for the past 34 years.

According to the lawsuit, a Monroe Elementary School parent, Kayla Shaw, emailed the school’s principal and every board of education member to report the presence of LGBTQ+-related books in Cahall’s classroom on Oct. 30.

Those four books were Ana On The Edge, The Fabulous Zed Watson, Hazel Bly and the Deep Blue Sea and Too Bright to See.

Advertisement

In November, New Richmond Exempted Village Schools Superintendent Tracey Miller began a disciplinary hearing against Cahall and suspended her for three days without pay.

The lawsuit says the suspension was issued for “simply having in her possession in her classroom four books that had LGBTQ+ characters in the plot line even though these particular books were intermingled among approximately one hundred other books” and “were not prominently displayed.”

None of the books were considered “obscene” or “offensive” as they do not have sexual content in them. The lawsuit described them as books about LGBTQ+ characters who are “coming to terms with feeling different.”

According to the lawsuit, Cahall did not teach from the books and did not require the students to read them. It goes on to say that the district’s board of education allegedly “engaged in content- and viewpoint-based discrimination in disciplining plaintiff Karen Cahall in their application of the Richmond Board Policy 2240…”

However, the teacher was previously told by Miller that the books were controversial, according to our media partners at the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Advertisement

A disciplinary letter obtained by the Enquirer says the books were “not acceptable,” especially after Cahall previously requested to place them in the library – a request that was denied.

Cahall filed the lawsuit on several claims for relief:

  1. The New Richmond Board Policy 2240 is “unconstitutionally vague” and violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
  2. Cahall sustained economic loss despite the policy violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
  3. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Miller from showing hostility toward any religion or religious group.
  4. The Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment prohibits Miller from using Board Policy 2240 to show hostility towards any religion or religious groups, including Cahall’s moral values.
  5. Miller is accused of depriving Cahall of her constitutional rights, which are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

New Richmond Board Policy 2240 – “Controversial Issues”

Section 2240 of the New Richmond Exempted Village School District’s policy was first adopted in 2009 and was last revised in 2021.

According to the policy, a controversial issue is “a topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.”

The district will permit “controversial issues” to be taught during instruction if:

  1. The content is related to “instructional goals” and students have a proper level of maturity
  2. The content does not tend to “indoctrinate or persuade students” to follow a specific view point
  3. The content encourages open-mindedness and is scholarly

However, the lawsuit argues that the policy is not only “vague” and “ambiguous,” but also that it does not state what a teacher is permitted to have in their classroom when it is not used for an “instructional program.”

FOX19 NOW has reached out to Cahall’s attorney, the school district and Miller for comment, but has not heard back. A request for Shaw’s email has also been submitted.

Advertisement

See a spelling or grammar error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.



Source link

Advertisement

Ohio

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit $865,000

Published

on

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit 5,000



Real estate transfers in Licking County, Ohio, range from $85,000 to $865,000

The following are property transfers recorded in Licking County from June 1-5, 2026.

Advertisement

First name indicates the seller; second name represents the buyer

Buckeye Lake

  • 502 Providence Lane; Cohagen, Christopher C and Lori A; Adams, Jeffrey L and Boyce-Adams, Jo Anna; 6/1/2026; $511,000
  • 131 Cranberry Lane; Smart, Amy and Kidwell, Kevin K; Sew and Minor, Christian; 6/1/2026; $262,000

Etna Township

  • 116 Cameron Drive SW; Ray, Erica L; Darjee, Sanjay and Laxmi and Dil; 6/2/2026; $412,000  
  • 119 Kraner St. SW; Adkins, Zane and Amy; Culbertson, Brenton Howard; 6/1/2026; $368,500
  • 160 Dusky Willow Drive; Willow Reserve LLC; Martin, Alaina K; 6/2/2026; $290,940

Granville

  • 119 Derwyn Del Way; Lifer, David C and Julia H; Martin, Michael and Lisa; 6/1/2026; $865,000
  • 39 Victoria Drive; Acton, Wendy S and Paul J; Cannon, Matthew Evan and Zywica, Natalie Nicole; 6/2/2026; $835,000

Granville Township

  • 49 Alberry Drive; Halliday, Lucas and Breayne; Howe, Jason and Kathryn; 6/2/2026; $570,000

Harrison Township

  • 102 Whirlaway Loop; Rice, Dawn (Trustee); Bope, Maria and Shane; 6/2/2026; $420,000

Heath

  • 1306 Kacey Court; Fischer Homes Columbus II LLC; Owens, Blake Andrew and Taylor Marie; 6/2/2026; $437,779
  • 805 Fieldson Drive; Flowers, Ingrit; Harder, Noah C; 6/2/2026; $250,000

Hebron

  • 802 Cumberland Meadows Circle; Lines, Marlene S; Gerhart, Jamie A and Ralph W Jr; 6/2/2026; $232,000

Johnstown

  • 101 Bigelow Drive; McGovern, Matthew S and Jennifer L; Sanford, Jessica; 6/2/2026; $442,500

Liberty Township

  • 5844 Nichols Lane Road NW; La Jeunesse, Garth E and Debra; Nesselroad, William Heath and Annie; 6/1/2026; $629,000
  • 7211 Northridge Road NW; Devault, Robert E Jr and Joann; Esbenshade, Travis M and Lowe, Shelby M; 6/1/2026; $495,000

Newark

  • 2110 Overlook Way; D.R. Horton-Indiana LLC; Tarsha, Michele A; 6/1/2026; $433,335
  • 1162 Taylor Ave.; Heath Fluid LLC; Anglada, Gabriel P and Salina T; 6/1/2026; $200,000
  • 32 Postal Ave. W.; Palmisano, Phil; Moore, Dominic Michael and Miksich, Paige Elizabeth; 6/1/2026; $198,900
  • 75 Gay St.; Velez, Marcos A; Camell, Campbell; 6/1/2026; $155,000
  • 655 Evans St.; TNL; McRada Properties LLC; 6/1/2026; $145,000
  • 63 Wallace St.; FDA Peachtree LLC; Burns, Amber L; 6/2/2026; $86,500
  • 404 10th St.; Synergy Group Properties LLC; Busy Boys Restoration LLC; 6/2/2026; $85,000

Reynoldsburg

  • 8447 Rodebaugh Road; Collins, Carol J; Thorpe, Kimberley Lynn and Henry, Steven; 6/2/2026; $340,000



Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored

Published

on

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s law requiring children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps must be restored, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The decision comes as a blow to NetChoice, which has won court victories against identical digital identification laws in other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. The trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies said the Ohio decision went against “clear national consensus” and that it intended to keep fighting.

“An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected,” said Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.

Netchoice brought suit against Ohio’s law in 2024, arguing that it was overly broad, vague and represented an unconstitutional impediment to free speech.

Advertisement

The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit’s panel disagreed. In a 2-1 decision, it found that the law was not unconstitutional and sent it back to a lower court to have a block on the law’s enforcement vacated.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

Judge Alice Batchelder concurred, writing that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”

Known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, the Ohio law was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July 2023.

The administration pushed the measure as a way to protect children’s mental health, with then-Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator, saying at the time that social media was “intentionally addictive” and harmful to kids.

Advertisement

The law requires companies to get parental permission for social media and gaming apps and to provide their privacy guidelines so families know what content would be censored or moderated on their child’s profile.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Republican Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called Thursday’s ruling “a win for Ohio families.”

“The court agreed that parents –- not social media companies –- should get a say in what kids see online,” he said in a statement. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ohio

Storm’s path of power outages and road closures

Published

on

Storm’s path of power outages and road closures


Piketon, Ohio (WSAZ) – Folks in southern Ohio are waking up to power outages and road closures.

Route 32 in Pike County is down to one westbound and one eastbound lane due to debris on the roadway.

Drivers are also dealing with tree limbs on roadways.

The Athens County 911 dispatcher told WSAZ that it’s not believed a tornado touched down, but there is storm damage.

Advertisement

The dispatcher said storm damage from flooding and trees being knocked down has affected US 50.

Power outages are being reported in Athens, Pike, Vinton, Scioto and Meigs Counties and even as far south as Boyd County, Ky.

If you’re in a tornado warning area, you’re urged to get to the lower part of your home.

Keep checking the WSAZ app for the latest.

Copyright 2026 WSAZ. All rights reserved.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending