Clarification needed on Journal story Butler vs. Placer Union High School District

Your article ("Suit dropped against PUHSD, ex-supe Tooker," Auburn Journal, Nov. 5, page A1) presents an incomplete and misleading account of an active legal matter under appellate review. The headline creates the false impression that Jill Butler voluntarily abandoned her claims. In fact, the Placer County Superior Court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, and the case has been timely appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Third District (appeal filed Oct. 29, 2025). Ms. Butler, Ms. Branham, and Dr. Tooker have all served our community with dedication. This case isn't about harming anyone's reputation – it's about accountability and ensuring employment decisions are based on merit. The case was not dropped or decided on its merits. The appeal challenges the trial court's inconsistent application of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code § 12940). In its first ruling, the court characterized the matter as a "conduit" action, which applies only to discrimination based on the identity of a current spouse. In its second, contradictory ruling, the court sustained the demurrer by defining Butler as "divorced" and therefore not a current "spouse" protected by the statute. No court has yet ruled on the substance of Butler's claims, which allege marital-status discrimination and a public employer's failure to reasonably regulate workplace bias. Uncharted legal territory From the outset, all parties understood that this case could enter uncharted legal territory in California. As Gold Mountain California News Media reported on Aug. 20, 2024 ("Del Oro AD files lawsuit against Placer Union High School District," PUHSD), Butler's attorney noted, "This case may break new legal ground in California." The central question is straightforward: Does FEHA protect a divorced employee when her ex-spouse, now in a position of power, uses that influence to affect her employment opportunities? This is not a routine personnel dispute. The appellate outcome could establish precedent clarifying and strengthening protections for divorced Californians whose professional lives intersect with former spouses in supervisory or decision-making roles. Butler's pursuit of this case is not personal; it is about public fairness. She remains committed to ensuring that no employee faces career harm tied to a prior marriage. Her case stands as a broader test of civic accountability and legal equity. A tale of 2 hires Ironically, while serving as deputy superintendent, Tooker oversaw the district's recommendation and board approval of his current wife for a similar role. Yet one year later, the same district blocked a qualified divorced woman – his former wife – from consideration. Apparently, it was acceptable to hire a current spouse but not to promote a divorced one. That contradiction isn't just poor optics; it cuts directly against the Legislature's intent behind FEHA, which was designed to prevent exactly this kind of marital-status discrimination and to "safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination." (Gov. Code § 12920.) Imbalance in reporting Unfortunately, your article did not reflect the full complexity or public significance of this case. It leaned heavily on statements from former Superintendent Tooker and former Board President Branham while offering no comment or perspective from Butler's counsel. This contrasts sharply with the 2024 coverage, which reported: "The Auburn Journal reached out to the PUHSD for comment and was told the district does not comment on pending litigation or personnel matters." It's telling that Tooker and Branham declined to comment then yet now appear eager to take a public victory lap. Public accountability matters When a story involves a taxpayer-funded school district and its senior executives, accuracy and balance are civic obligations. Amplifying official narratives while excluding the citizen's voice violates both journalistic fairness and public responsibility. Readers should know: • The case remains active on appeal. • The legal questions are novel and potentially precedent-setting. • Butler continues this litigation on behalf of all Californians who value fairness, transparency, accountability and merit-based opportunity in public employment. Why this matters Beyond this individual case, the issues raised could influence the interpretation of FEHA statewide. The appeal may invite amicus participation or legislative review. More broadly, it raises an issue of public trust: No one should have their career undermined by an ex-spouse in a position of authority – especially within a taxpayer-funded institution that owes its employees and community equal treatment. Like a tennis match, Butler – a Placer High School Hall of Fame tennis champion – may have lost the first set, but the match is far from over. With broad bipartisan community support, legislative intent and the same tenacity that defined her athletic career, she will continue fighting point by point in pursuit of justice, fairness and equal treatment for all divorced Californians in the workplace. Greg Brening is a husband, steadfast supporter of Jill Butler and advocate for equal rights for divorced individuals.