Great Barrington — Attorneys for Arantzazú Zuzene Galdós-Shapiro, the now former eighth grade ELA teacher at W.E.B. Du Bois Middle School, have filed their objections to motions to dismiss her lawsuits against the town, Police Chief Paul Storti, Police Officer Joseph O’Brien, and Berkshire Hills Regional School District Superintendent Peter Dillon.
In December 2023, the Great Barrington Police Department investigated Galdós-Shapiro in response to a complaint that she had a copy of the graphic novel “Gender Queer” in her classroom. The incident made national headlines, and going into 2025, the legal cases continues on.
Galdós-Shapiro, who now lives in Philadelphia, originally filed a civil rights lawsuit in May 2024 against the parties involved in the investigation.
In August, Galdós-Shapiro’s team of attorneys from Boston’s Todd & Weld LLP filed an amended complaint with multiple new allegations against the defendants.
In September the attorney representing the town, police department, and school district made a motion in United States District Court to have the lawsuit dismissed, and Superintendent Dillon’s attorney filed a separate motion to have the lawsuit dismissed in October.
In late November, Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys filed oppositions to the two separate motions to dismiss, and on December 20, attorneys representing the town, Chief Storti, Officer O’Brien, and Superintendent Dillon all re-filed motions to have the case dismissed.
As expected, Galdós-Shapiro’s team of attorneys once again filed objections to the motions to dismiss the case. The motions were all filed in the United States District Court of Massachusetts on Friday, January 3. Glades Shapiro’s team of lawyers from the law firm of Todd & Weld LLP of Boston include Howard Cooper, Maria Davis, Benjamin Wish, and Shayne Lotito.
In opposition to the motion to dismiss on behalf of the town, Chief Storti, and Officer O’Brien, Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys restate many of the claims she made in previous legal filings:
Ms. Galdós-Shapiro did not bring this lawsuit on the basis of a ‘preliminary investigation,’ as the GB Defendants prefer to style her allegations. Rather, she has brought her claims against the GB Defendants because on the basis of the Criminal Complaint stating that Ms. Galdós-Shapiro kept a personal copy of the critically-acclaimed Gender Queer they accused her of criminal acts, trapped her in her classroom, and searched her classroom. In other words, the GB Defendants treated Ms. Galdós-Shapiro as a criminal because she chose to keep a book related to issues of public concern—which were extremely important to her personally—in her classroom.
The attorneys claim that the video footage of the investigation, taken by Officer O’Brien’s bodycam as he questioned both Galdós-Shapiro and previous school Principal Miles Wheat, “…corroborates that the actions of the GB Defendants were solely about ‘Gender Queer’. Though the GB Defendants elect to claim that their actions were based on allegations other than the existence of ‘Gender Queer’, that is the opposite of what the Amended Complaint alleges and, indeed, is simply wrong. Given these realities, the GB Defendants’ Reply raises an important question; does law enforcement have a right to investigate, trap, intimidate and accuse an individual of crimes on the basis of a facially of a complaint that is facially unreasonable? The answer to that question is a resounding ‘no.’”
In their filing, Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys continue to argue that the investigation had violated her First Amendment rights:
Through their press release issued eight days after the GB Defendants’ retaliatory conduct against Ms. Galdós-Shapiro, the GB Defendants conceded that their acts arose out of the allegations about Gender Queer. That press release describes the Criminal Complaint as being about ‘what they perceived to be concerning illustrations in a book.’ Indeed, that press release admits that ‘[b]ecause we were only provided a single image of the illustration, it was important to identify and examine the material that was reported to us.’ Nevertheless, the GB Defendants did not even do an internet search for the book, which would have revealed there was no potential crime, before taking action against Ms. Galdós-Shapiro. The press release did not mention any other allegations.
Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys go on to argue that Officer O’Brien, upon entering her classroom, interrogated her regarding “Gender Queer” and not because of any other allegation, “advising her that the book was obscene and illegal, that she could not have the book in her classroom and suggesting that her having the book was a criminal offense.” The filing also states that, at one point, Officer O’Brien searched through her personal belongings without permission.
Despite their rush to investigate Ms. Galdós-Shapiro, Officer O’Brien never questioned Ms. Galdós-Shapiro regarding the other false claims in the Criminal Complaint. He also did not interrogate the other faculty members named in the Criminal Complaint, or the teachers Ms. Galdós-Shapiro identified as also having Gender Queer. Ms. Galdós-Shapiro was left in tears after Officer O’Brien left.
In the objection, Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys continue to claim that her rights protected in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and her rights as listed in state General Law Section 11H and Articles 1 and 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were all violated:
Though the GB Defendants, again, seek shelter behind the lies contained in the Criminal Complaint that strategy once more fails. Ms. Galdós-Shapiro’s equal protection claim survives. Here, exactly such similarly situated individuals, with Gender Queer in their classrooms, were left unscathed while the GB Defendants ensured that Ms. Galdós-Shapiro, a queer Mexican American woman married to a trans woman, was subjected to an unjustified police investigation.
The Criminal Complaint also referenced other teachers present during the alleged criminal acts, however Defendants never attempted to investigate them, nor did Defendants investigate any other teacher who housed Gender Queer in their classroom in any way. The GB Defendants did not even seek to investigate those individuals, never mind subject them to the treatment which they visited upon Ms. Galdós-Shapiro.
The suggestion that the GB Defendants did not know Ms. Galdós-Shapiro is part of a protected class is neither relevant nor correct. They saw that she is a woman, knew that she is a person of color including based upon her last name, and (it can reasonably inferred) knew she was queer based on their discussion with the District.
Galdos-Shapiro’s attorneys go on to state that the court should not dismiss her claims that the town, Chief Storti, and Officer O’Brien all violated her rights under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA) during their investigation.
The exclusions of liability under the MCRA do not protect Chief Storti and Officer O’Brien from their intentional conduct. As the appeals court decision upon which the GB Defendants rely points out, it is negligent acts done in furtherance of one’s public duties that are potentially excluded from liability, not intentional, unlawful acts of the species alleged here.
Chief Storti had a history of antiLGBTQ animus. Chief Storti and Officer O’Brien, together with Dr. Dillon, devised a plan targeted to maximize the pressure on Ms. Galdós-Shapiro. Fundamentally, they undertook all the acts articulated in the Amended Complaint despite the reality that any minimal investigation into the book itself, which they knew was important, would have cemented that no crime had occurred.
In the filing, Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys argue that Chief Storti and Officer O’Brien are not protected by qualified immunity:
In fact, the allegations of the Amended Complaint that the GB Defendants ignore allege that they intruded on Ms. Galdós-Shapiro’s classroom at a time when they could catch her alone, and proceeded to physically trap her in the space, interrogate her and accuse her of committing crimes.
Ironically, had the GB Defendants actually undertaken a preliminary investigation, including actually doing a simple Google search for the book, they would have immediately known that there was no crime because Gender Queer is an award-winning, critically-acclaimed work of substantial artistic value. Indeed, the GB Defendants knew they needed to do exactly that, as they explained in their press release: ‘Because we were only provided a single image of the illustration, it was important to identify and examine the material that was reported to us.’
As for Superintendent Dillon’s motion to dismiss the case, Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys rebuff the motion by claiming:
The Defendants assaulted Ms. Galdós-Shapiro’s security in herself—physically, emotionally, and with regard to her foundational civil rights—because she had the temerity to express her own identity in relation to a matter of public concern: gender identity. Nothing in Dr. Dillon’s Reply changes that reality.
The [motion] does not seek to suggest that there was any potential crime at all, including based on everything Dr. Dillon knew. It does not try to rebuff the truth that Gender Queer is an award-winning, critically-acclaimed work. And it does not suggest that Ms. Galdós-Shapiro, a queer Mexican-American woman, is anything other than a highly vulnerable individual. It fails to provide any justification for this Court to shuck off Ms. Galdós Shapiro’s claims.
Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys proceed to take apart Superintendent Dillon’s motion to dismiss by claiming:
[Dillion’s] furious attempts to slice the onion of the Amended Complaint into invisible wisps is nevertheless helpful. It reflects that Dr. Dillon knows that all his legal arguments are even weaker than his jabs at the facts.
Dr. Dillon notes that the Amended Complaint alleges that Ms. Galdós-Shapiro did not make the award-winning book ‘Gender Queer’ available ‘generally’ while the opposition does not use that word. This is a distinction without a difference: the point, as Ms. Galdós-Shapiro’s legal argument makes clear, is that she did not offer up the book as part of the regular school curriculum.
Galdós-Shapiro’s attorneys go on to repeat their claims that Superintendent Dillon “aided, abetted, and conspired with Chief Storti and Officer O’Brien to deprive Galdós-Shapiro of her rights by facilitating Officer O’Brien’s unlawful search and interrogation.”
As for the claims that Galdós-Shapiro’s First Amendment rights had been violated, her attorneys go on to claim, “Nothing about Galdós-Shapiro’s speech is within the scope of her duties and responsibilities, so it is protected speech.”
Dr. Dillon does not claim, because he cannot, that Ms. Galdós-Shapiro made the at-issue speech pursuant to any duties or responsibilities of her employment. He does not and cannot argue that ‘Gender Queer’ was part of the school curriculum, fell within the ambit of Ms. Galdós Shapiro’s narrow, administrative duties as GSA [Gay Straight Alliance] advisor, or other teaching responsibilities.
Her attorneys go on to claim:
There was just one reason that Dr. Dillon directed the police to search Ms. Galdós Shapiro’s classroom for ‘Gender Queer’ without a warrant; coordinated with the police to ensure that Ms. Galdós-Shapiro did not know of the search, including by instructing Principal Wheat not to apprise Ms. Galdós-Shapiro of the impending search; and broadcasted the District’s mischaracterization of ‘Gender Queer’ and Ms. Galdós-Shapiro’s role to the public. Ms. Galdós-Shapiro had ‘Gender Queer’ in her classroom.
Dr. Dillon’s summary assertion that the Amended Complaint does not support an inference of causation gets him nowhere. Despite knowing that Ms. Galdós-Shapiro had not committed any crime, Dr. Dillon agreed with and assisted the GBPD with their investigation into ‘Gender Queer’. Pretending that those allegations do not exist does not make them disappear.
As of press time on Friday, January 10, the next date in the case has not been scheduled.
Click here for Galdos-Shapiro’s attorney’s latest filing in opposition to the motions to dismiss.
