Gloucester County School Board v G.G.
Fareed Hester
MBA 630
Due Date: November 20, 2018
Hampton University
Introduction
This case note will discuss the issue of transgender rights in education. Currently, transgender rights are an extremely relevant topic in society. In a time were the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning) community is strong and has made steps toward their equality; we are facing new instances that challenge the laws we have in place. One specific occurrence that will be discussed is the case G.G. v Gloucester County School Board. Bathroom usage in schools has not been much of an issue in the past but has surfaced in a case regarding a transgender student who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and their use of the restroom facilities at school. This case note will argue that the district court made the correct ruling on this case but should add a stipulation that will help create a solution for transgender students.
Facts
In July 2015, G.G. a student in the Gloucester County school system would challenge the newly instated bathroom policy by the Gloucester County School Board as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. G.G. was born as female but soon would identify as a male and eventually be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Following his diagnosing he was given permission to use the male bathroom. That permission was soon then taken away after the school board implemented regulation to disable G.G. from using the male bathroom. The Gloucester County School board started to receive backlash from residence in the area and they originally decided to reveal plans of implementing more privacy measures in the restrooms. Upon further protest, they passed a rule making transgender students use single stall bathrooms if they did not want to use the bathroom correlating with their gender at birth. In January 2015 the Board of Education released an opinion letter pertaining to mandate under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The letter stated that schools who get federal funding should allow transgender students to use restrooms of the gender in which they identify. Following the opinion letter by the BOE, Grimm decided to challenge the Gloucester County School Board alleging violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title IX. In hopes that Gavin would be able to use the male’s bathroom when classes started for the 2015-16 school year, a request for preliminary injunction was filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Holding
The district court denied the injunction as well as dismissed the claim under violation of Title IX claiming that in agreeance with the defendant, “sex discrimination does not include discrimination against transgender individuals” . The district court decision was appealed and brought before the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit who in August 2016 overturned the district court’s ruling. Following the overturning, the Gloucester County School Board petitioned for a review from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme court accepted the petition to review but before they could do so the Trump administration rescinded the guidance given by the BOE. The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to consider without previous guidance. In August 2017 a Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of the case was filed in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Roadmap
– Part I: this section will further discuss in detail the facts and holding, following the case from start to finish
– Part II: this section will analyze the proceedings and outcome of this case, discussing previously related cases, arguments from both parties, my position – regarding the issue and my recommendations to the law
– Part III: this part will summarize my argument and discuss implantation of my conclusion
PART I: Facts and Holding Details
Gavin Grim was born May 4, 1994 in Gloucester County where he has lived his entire life. Gavin was born as a female but at a young age started to identify as a male and even refused to wear female clothing . Gavin would go on to hide his gender identity until the age of 12 when he told just a few close friends. In Gavin’s freshman year of high school, he faced depressed and anxiety stemming from hiding his gender identity from his family. Those feelings would cause Gavin to take classes in a home-bound program in the spring semester of his freshman year . Gavin would then tell his family about his gender identity and request a psychologist . Psychologist diagnosed Gavin with Gender dysphoria, which is the distress one undertakes as a result of the gender they were assigned with at birth. A treatment was created for Gavin consistent with treatment developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) . One aspect of Gavin’s treatment was that he must be completely recognized and treated as the male gender that he identifies with. In order to comply with that treatment Gavin would have to use the male bathroom at school. In addition to restroom usage, Gavin would also petition that the courts change his legal name to Gavin, which before was a more feminine name. As the name change was in accordance with Gavin’s treatment, the court granted the motion. Returning to school, Gavin’s teachers were made aware of his name change and were not opposed to referring to him with masculinity . After at first using the nurse’s bathroom for safety precautions, Gavin felt safe and welcomed and expressed his interest in using the male restrooms. The principle allowed Gavin to use the male restroom and within weeks complaints from parent in the community started to arise . “Discussion of Use of Restrooms/Locker Room Facilities” would be added to the school board’s meeting agenda. A discussion that would lead to a new regulation forcing schools to only allow students to use the bathroom of the gender in which they were at birth .
Following the school year, Gavin Grimm would argue the school board violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Upon litigation of Gavin’s case the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest regarding interpretation of Title IX . The court would go onto rule in favor of the School Board and dismiss Gavin’s claim against Title IX regulation and his preliminary injunction. Gavin would then go on to request an appeal where the case would be seen by the 4th Circuit court of Appeals. The Appeals court reversed the decision of the Circuit court on the basis that the Gloucester County school board did in fact discriminate against Gavin by implementing that regulation .
Following the appeal court’s ruling, the Gloucester school board would go onto request further review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would agree to review the case but before they could do so, the Trump administration rescinded the prior interpretation of Title IX given by the Board of Education . The Supreme Court would send the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for further review considering the extraction of previous interpretation. After neither side decided to present new evidence, a stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal was ordered. Finally, an Amended complaint was filed by Gavin which would rule in his favor resulting in declarations stating the school board violated/violates Gavin’s rights under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The court also ruled for a permanent injunction forcing the Board to grant Gavin access to male restrooms upon his return as alumni and to reimburse Gavin for all court fees and reach a settlement that the courts felt suit.
Part II: Analysis
1) Amendment, Law, and Previous Cases
Gavin Grim challenged the Gloucester County School board on the violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The equal protection clause states “nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” . Title IX of the Education Amendments is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program that receives federal funding . A rather prominent related case was Doe v. Clenchy, a case stemming back to 2011 ending in 2014 with a ruling siding with the plaintiff stating that not alloying a transgender girl to use the bathroom in which she identifies was a violation of Maine's Human Rights Act. Susan Doe was born a male but started identifying with female tendencies as young as the age of 2. In the early years of schooling up until the 4th grade, Susan would wear gender neutral clothes and use the female bathroom though at the time all bathrooms were single stall. As Susan moved to the higher-level grades and communal bathrooms were present, her school was faced with the task of creating a plan for how they would handle this bathroom situation. A team assembled consisting of school officials and Susan’s parents and the decision was made to allow Susan to use the girl’s communal bathrooms. A decision which would be retracted after a young man would go into the girl’s bathroom claiming that if Susan had the right to use it, then so did he. Susan was then instructed to use a unisex faculty bathroom with one stall. When originally going to court in Penobscot County, the court ruled on behalf of the Regional school unit arguing that Susan using the female’s bathroom would combat a statutory provision regarding schools providing separately clean toilets for each gender. In early 2014, Maine’s highest court would rule that denial of a student’s right to use the bathroom in which they identify with is transgender discrimination. This case is important because it is the first time a state court ruled as such. Other previous cases that were considered in reference to standards of privacy include Doe v Luzerne county, Lee v Downs, and Poe v Leonard . Cases that were sited in relation to interpretation of Title IX include Jennings v Univ. of NC. and Johnston v University of Pittsburg of Commonwealth System of Higher Education. In response, Gavin cites several Title VII cases that classify gender discrimination as a part of sexual discrimination. Those cases include Glenn v Brumby, Smith v City of Salem, and Lopez v River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic. Gavin would also go onto cite a case that he believed started a precedent and made all prior cases old law. Price Waterhouse v Hopkins was a Supreme court case where the court considered a Title VII based on a female being denied partnership due to her masculinity.
2) Case discussion
Beginning with the original complaint, Gavin challenged the Gloucester County School Board on Title IX. The three factors within Title IX are that one is excluded, the program receives federal assistance, and the discrimination is on the bases of sex . The school board argued that the last factor being “on the bases of sex” was not applicable to this case. They argued that transgender discrimination is not a part of sex discrimination. They would further argue that though gender discrimination can play a part in sexual discrimination but the specifics regarding gender at birth and transgender students is not classified under Title IX. The school boards argument would hold up as the court found that the implantation of new regulation regarding transgenders was not in violation with Title IX. One of the school board’s strongest arguments involved the interpretation of Title IX. The board would highlight the texts which permits the provision of “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities for students of the other sex.” . They would argue that even with the new bathroom regulations in place, they were in coherence with those Title IX speculations. The court would also deny the preemptive injunction that would allow Gavin to use the male bathroom until the case was settled. The court would review factors that grant preliminary injunction:
1. Likely to succeed on merits
2. One will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction
3. Balance of hardships weighs in their favor
4. Injunction is in public’s interest
The school board would argue Gavin did not provide enough evidence to prove the balance of hardships was in his favor. They would even go on to argue that granting this preemptive injunction would further endanger other students and increase the likelihood of assault occurring in the restrooms. Gavin would also argue he has already experience hardships in his years at school feeling depressed and having anxiety. The school board would continue to attest to the importance of safety for all other students at school . Another deciding factor was the lack of control of the interpretation of Title IX released by the United States Department of Education. In order for an interpretation of doctrine to be controlling if the regulation it is regarding is ambiguous and if the interpretation is not erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. The court would rule that the interpretation was not ambiguous and inconsistent with the regulation.
The Fourth Circuit Court of appeals retracted the previous decision of the district court under claims that by implementing a regulation immediately after Gavin began to use the male bathroom was without a doubt a violation of the Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause . The Gloucester County School submitted a request for Supreme Court review of the case . The Supreme court accepted the request and were set to review G.G. v Gloucester County School Board. While pending that review, the Trump administration retracted the prior interpretation of Title IX by the Board of Education. At that time, the Supreme Court decided to send the case back to the 4th Circuit court of Appeals for additional review considering retractions of the prior Title IX interpretation . Upon no new evidence being presented to the Appeals Court, the case was dismissed. Gavin Grim would then go on to file an amended complaint just a few weeks later . The court would rule in favor of Gavin in his amended complaint resulting in declarations stating the school board violated/violates Gavin’s rights under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The court also ruled for a permanent injunction forcing the Board to grant Gavin access to male restrooms upon his return as alumni, pay court fees and a settlement.
3) Position & Recommendation
The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia made the correct decision but did not initiate a solution to what was and still is an issue for its students. The courts should add a stipulation to the law that allows students who are diagnosed and treated for gender dysphoria to use the restroom of which they identify; this stipulation will prevent false identifying and the sexual discrimination against transgenders and begin to solve a problem that was still evident. The stipulation will be as follows “…schools are required to permit any student diagnosed and treated or currently receiving treatment for gender dysphoria to use the restroom in which they identify”. If Gavin had not submitted an appeal to the district court original findings, he would have without a fight spent his remaining time in high school facing depression and isolation. The courts needed to immediately request for an implementation of new law regarding the matter, especially because much of the argument was over interpretation of “sex” and “gender” in Title IX . Much of the concern from the school board was the safety of all students . They attested to the possibility of a students coming to school on any given day and claiming that they identify as the opposite sex and that the school must allow them to use the any bathroom they please. The stipulation will apply only to students who are diagnosed and treated for gender dysphoria, a treatment that often includes hormone changes as well as the need to be treated as the gender they identify. This added stipulation will eliminate the ability to identify with any gender on any given day as students will need official documentation regarding treatment; but it will still allow transgender students to be included and have equal resources available.
A huge roadblock that the School Board ran into was the timing in which regulation was released. It seemed as though the Gloucester School Board was making the regulation solely to prevent one student, Gavin Grim from using the male restroom. The regulation was a response to the permission given to Gavin by the school principle. With this sort of back and forth application, the School Board was individually discriminating against Gavin . With application of a new law allowing students with gender dysphoria to use the bathroom they identify with, individual discrimination on the basis of sex with respects to transgender bathroom use will be eliminated.
Part III: Conclusion
In conclusion, an added stipulation is recommended to Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 regarding transgender rights to bathroom is use. The interpretation will state a stipulation as follows “…schools are required to permit any student diagnosed and treated or currently receiving treatment for gender dysphoria to use the restroom in which they identify”. The Board of Education had a similar view that they made clear in their opinion letter concerning Title IX, but they failed to stipulate what exactly will suffice for proof of gender. Prompting the proper paperwork, this stipulation will change the lives of many. This stipulation will eliminate safety issues of other students, and discrimination against transgender in school. The influence on the LGBTQ community would be monumental as another step to achieving equality in every aspect of life. Currently, this implication is still warranted. Gavin Grim finished school child his case was still pending but the issue may never be solved until Gloucester County has another transgender student.