San Diego School District Settles Anti-LGBTQ+ Discrimination Lawsuit With Former Special Education Director Referred To As A "Witch"

For nearly three decades, Rose Tagnesi worked for the Grossmont Union High School District in the San Diego area, ultimately serving as its director of special education before she says she was swept up in what she described as an anti-LGBTQ+ campaign by a newly conservative school board majority. This week, that conflict culminated in a $1. 2 million settlement resolving her discrimination lawsuit against the district.

According to court filings summarized in multiple news reports, Tagnesi alleged that she faced harassment, a demotion, and pressure to resign because she is a lesbian and because she opposed what she called an “anti-LGBTQ agenda” advanced by a majority of the district’s school board. The district has denied any wrongdoing and emphasized that the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability.

Tagnesi spent more than 28 years working in the Grossmont Union High School District, a large district in eastern San Diego County that serves multiple high schools. She became the district’s special education director in 2010, overseeing programs that serve students with disabilities across the district.

In her lawsuit, Tagnesi claimed that over time a conservative-leaning board majority advanced policies and positions she viewed as hostile to LGBTQ+ students and staff. She alleged that board members pushed what she characterized as an “anti-LGBTQ agenda, ” and that her objections and her own identity as a lesbian made her a target.

Among the incidents cited in coverage of the lawsuit, Tagnesi alleged that a supervisor warned her to keep a “low profile” regarding her sexual orientation, reportedly telling her that if board members “found out she was gay, they wouldn’t approve a promotion for her. ” GO Magazine reports that she further claimed the same supervisor suggested board members might not promote her if they learned she was a lesbian.

The lawsuit attracted wider attention in 2024 after local investigative outlet ABC 10News Team 10 reported that Tagnesi alleged a trustee had made derogatory and anti-LGBTQ+ comments about her.

According to summaries of the court filings, Tagnesi alleged that board trustee Jim Kelly referred to her and another school employee as “witches” who were part of an “LGBTQ coven. ” GO Magazine, citing the lawsuit, also reported that Kelly allegedly called them “lesbians” and described them as “witches who are part of an LGBTQ coven. ”

The lawsuit further alleged that Kelly made disparaging remarks suggesting a staff member was unqualified and was hired because “she is hot” and Tagnesi is a lesbian, which Tagnesi characterized as part of a pattern of sexist and anti-LGBTQ+ statements. The trustee has not publicly responded to these specific allegations in the coverage cited, and the district’s general statement on the settlement did not address them individually.

A central turning point in Tagnesi’s employment came after a 2021 incident at Santana High School, one of the district’s campuses. GO Magazine reports that, according to the lawsuit, a student left school grounds, was missing for five days, and during that period was trafficked. An internal investigation followed, and multiple administrators were eventually demoted; the family of the student also filed a separate lawsuit against the district.

Coverage indicates that Tagnesi was not named in the student’s family’s lawsuit, which the district reportedly settled in 2023 for $400, 000. However, Tagnesi’s suit claimed that after an initial investigation, the district reopened the matter and hired an external attorney who she believed was ideologically aligned with three board members she described as anti-LGBTQ+.

According to GO Magazine’s summary of the complaint, Tagnesi alleged that this attorney was retained to “conduct a witch hunt” against her, and that following the renewed investigation she was removed from her special education director role and reassigned to a classroom teaching position. GO Magazine reports that Tagnesi claimed the attorney texted “one down, one to go” after another staff member was dismissed, which she interpreted as referring to her as the next target. These allegations have not been tested at trial because the case was resolved through settlement.

Beyond the specific remarks and employment actions directed at Tagnesi, the lawsuit contended that she was one of “many victims” of what she described as a broader discriminatory campaign by the board majority.

GO Magazine, citing the lawsuit, reports that the board had previously banned books with LGBTQ+ content and ended a contract with a mental health provider that had offered specialized services for LGBTQ+ students. These steps were presented by Tagnesi and her attorneys as part of a pattern in which policies and decisions were aligned with opposition to LGBTQ+ inclusion in the district’s schools. The district has not publicly detailed its rationale for these specific decisions in the coverage cited here, and the settlement documents themselves have not been fully published in the outlets reviewed.

In a statement quoted by GO Magazine, Tagnesi’s lawsuit described her as “a proud member of the LGBTQ community who served GUHSD for over 28 years in exemplary fashion” and argued that she was “one of the many victims of the anti-LGBTQ majority board’s discriminatory campaign. ”

Multiple outlets report that the Grossmont Union High School District has agreed to resolve the case with a $1. 2 million settlement in favor of Tagnesi.

ABC 10News states that Tagnesi’s attorney confirmed the $1. 2 million total, while The Advocate reports that the district will pay $19, 000 immediately and $700, 000 over the next two decades, with additional funds allocated to cover her legal fees. GO Magazine reports that the district must place $700, 000 in an account for long-term payments to Tagnesi and immediately pay her about $19, 000, and that approximately $481, 000 will go to her attorneys under the settlement. The different numbers reported for attorney fees appear to stem from how each outlet characterizes the total settlement package, but all three describe a combined arrangement of direct payments to Tagnesi and coverage of her legal costs.

In a statement to ABC 10News, district spokesperson Collin McGlashen said that the agreement is intended to allow all parties to move forward and stressed that the district is not admitting liability. ABC 10News quotes the statement as saying: “The purpose of a settlement like this is to allow all parties to move forward in the most productive way possible. The agreement clearly states that it does not represent an admission of wrongdoing by the District or a validation of the claims made in the lawsuit. ”

GO Magazine similarly notes that the district, in settling, “was neither admitting wrongdoing nor validating the suit’s claims, ” citing comments from the district’s spokesperson.

In public comments relayed through her attorney and in interviews, Tagnesi has framed the settlement as both a personal vindication and a signal to the broader LGBTQ+ community.

ABC 10News reports that Tagnesi told the station the settlement is “important not only for her, but also to the broader LGBT community. ” GO Magazine quotes a written statement from Tagnesi, via her attorney, in which she said, “This settlement is incredibly important not only for me, but for what it signals to members of the larger LGBTQ+ community: a clear recognition that their rights matter, and that they are important. ”

In the same statement, she expressed hope that the district will take “decisive action toward creating the culture of inclusivity its students and teachers deserve. ” Her attorney, Aaron Olsen of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP , praised her for challenging what he characterized as discriminatory conduct by the board. GO Magazine quotes Olsen as saying that Tagnesi “bravely stood up in the face of adversity, not only on behalf of herself but all members of the LGBTQ+ community, ” and that she was “tirelessly dedicated to her students” over many years.

For now, the case stands as a prominent example of how LGBTQ+ discrimination allegations against school districts can result in significant legal settlements and renewed scrutiny of how boards’ ideological positions intersect with their obligations to protect employees and students from harassment.