HILLIARD, Ohio (WCMH) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Hilliard City Schools by parents who claimed the district pressured a student to adopt “a new name and identity as the opposite sex.”

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson rejected the suit on Wednesday, stating the parents didn’t respond to the school board’s motion for a summary judgement and that claims the district could be “hiding [a] child’s gender dysphoria” exceeded the two-year statute of limitations. Another claim alleging Hilliard schools intentionally inflicted emotional distress was also dismissed.

A plaintiff said the district “engaged in gender-affirming care” with her child without telling her, but testified multiple times that she knew as early as January 2021 that teachers were referring to the student by a different name and pronouns. To fall within the statute of limitations, the plaintiff needed to file her claims by the end of January 2023.

While the parents’ original filing in the case was submitted on Jan. 16, 2023, this plaintiff didn’t join the suit until an amended complaint was filed in February.

“From the outset, our position has been that this suit was misinformed and based on incorrect facts. It mischaracterized our district’s policies and procedures and made allegations of conduct that did not occur,” the district said in a previous statement. “It also made several broad conclusions and accusations, which had little to do with the legal arguments presented.”

The parents initially sued Hilliard schools in January 2023 to call on the court to stop district teachers from wearing LGBTQ-supportive badges that read “I’m Here” with a Pride flag design on the front. Teachers were given permission to continue wearing the badges in 2022 after some parents expressed concern over a code on the back that could lead to websites inappropriate for children.

Watson dismissed that part of the case for lack of standing in 2024, stating the parents didn’t allege whether any of their children’s teachers, or anyone at their children’s schools, wear the badge. The parents also failed to allege that they have any reason to believe that their child would scan the QR code if they see a badge.

“Plaintiffs offer no allegations that their children have told or will tell the school that they are, or may be, LGBTQ+,” Watson wrote in the 2024 ruling. “Because [parents] have not plausibly alleged that their children have reported or will report such issues to school officials, they have likewise not plausibly alleged that they will suffer any injury as a result of what the district might do in response.”

The parents’ second amended complaint, alleging a student was pressured by teachers to adopt “a new name and identity as the opposite sex,” was permitted by Watson at the time to proceed through litigation. The plaintiffs had also argued, “The district’s acts were reckless because district officials are not qualified — and are specifically denied entitlement to — make diagnoses and treatment decisions for somebody else’s child.”