Transgender Legal Update (March 23, 2017)

For many years, PSBA has urged its members to work with transgender students and their families to meet the needs of individual students and to provide them with a safe and supportive school environment.  In addition to continuous updates on the law, PSBA has provided in depth training and materials on practical ways to accommodate transgender students.  However, there are lawsuits pending in Pennsylvania and the United States that still must be decided before we know whether Title IX and the Unites States Constitution Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to protect individuals from discrimination based on gender identity.  Some of these cases have been in the news in recent weeks and orders have been issued.  Links to these orders are found at the end of this article.

Terminology
“Cisgender” is a term used to describe individuals whose gender identity aligns with their biological sex at birth, i.e., a person born as a biological girl identifies as a girl.  “Transgender” individuals’ gender identity differs from their biological sex at birth.  A transgender person born as a biological girl identifies as male.  “Gender expression” is how one presents to the world, i.e., dress, hairstyle, kind of jewelry used, makeup, etc.  It may or may not reflect a person’s gender identity. In discussions about gender, you will hear additional terminology which is reflected in some school districts’ policies and which will likely emerge in discrimination law suits.  For example, “Gender Expansive” is term broadly applicable to individuals whose gender identity and gender expression presents outside of gender norms for their society or context.  

Legal Conflicts: Title IX
Title IX prohibits discrimination in government programs based on sex.  Public schools are subject to Title IX and complaints may be investigated by the U. S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR).  In addition, individuals may file lawsuits claiming violations of Title IX.  In private lawsuits, remedies for successful plaintiffs can include injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Title IX regulations permit but do not require designation of sex-segregated facilities such as girls’ and boys’ bathrooms and locker rooms.  Central to legal disputes over Title IX is this question: “What is “sex?”  Those advocating protections under Title IX for transgender students say that the students’ sex is determined by gender identity.  Those opposing this view say that Title IX protects individuals based on their sex at birth or their biological sex.  A recent case filed in Pennsylvania avers that a cisgender student is being subjected to hostile environment sex discrimination because he is being forced to change in a locker room with a student who is anatomically female.

Equal Protection/Bodily Privacy:  U.S. Constitutional Claims
Cases brought by transgender students typically include that forcing them to use sex-segregated facilities based on their biological/birth gender instead of based on gender identity violates their right to Equal Protection under the law as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Cases brought by cisgender students argue that their Constitutional right to privacy, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is abridged by permitting people who are biologically one sex to use facilities designated for the other sex.

February 22, 2017 Guidance from U.S. Departments of Justice and Education
Citing the need to give guidance to the U.S. Supreme Court in the G.G. case from Virginia (discussed below), the Trump Administration issued a two-page Dear Colleague letter withdrawing the May 13, 2016 statements of guidance and policy on transgender students as well as a similar policy letter on the topic issued by the Department of Education on January 7, 2015.  The letter states, “These guidance documents take the position that the prohibitions on discrimination “on the basis of sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulations, see, e.g., 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, require access to sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity. These guidance documents do not, however, contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX, nor did they undergo any formal public process.”  Citing a need for local school districts and states to take a primary role in decisions regarding educational policy, the significant amount of litigation engendered on both sides of this issue, and the fact that there is currently an injunction against enforcement of the Obama Administration guidance, the decision was made to withdraw and rescind that guidance.  “The Departments thus will not rely on the views expressed within them.”

The letter emphasizes that students have the right to continued protection from discrimination, bullying and harassment.  “All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights will continue its duty under law to hear all claims of discrimination and will explore every appropriate opportunity to protect all students and to encourage civility in our classrooms.”  However, it does not further suggest an interpretation of existing law or add to existing law in any way.

Pennsylvania Public School Code
A recent case brought by a cisgender male student asserts that a school district is in violation of 24 P.S. §7-740, “Water-closets or out-houses.” Under this provision, coeducational schools must have at least two water-closets or out-houses “suitably constructed for, and used separately by, the sexes.”

Pennsylvania Policy matters affecting transgender students
August 8, 2016 –
Policy permitting birth certificate to be amended to reflect different gender. http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/PA-BC-Policy.pdf

August 1, 2016 – Pennsylvania Department of Education Pennsylvania Information Management System (PIMS) manual on reporting student gender, page 19:

Reporting Student Gender In accordance with non-regulatory guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, regarding the rights of transgender students under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a student or parent/guardian may request a change of the student’s listed gender, first name or middle name on their records. If this request occurs, the LEA may report the student’s preferred information using the following guidelines:

  • The change must first be made in PASecureID.
  • The PIMS data (first name, gender, and date of birth) must match what is reported in PASecureID.
  • The student’s name and gender information reported in prior school years will not be updated.
  • The student’s PASecureID will not be changed.

http://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/Teachers-Administrators/PIMS/PIMS%20Manuals/2016-2017%20PIMS%20Manual%20Volume%201.pdf

What does it mean that the United States Supreme Court Has Decided not to hear argument in March 2017 on the G.G. case from Virginia?

G.G. involved a transgender boy who sought to use the boys’ restrooms at his school. His case predates the May 13, 2016 federal. Guidance.  However, by the time he made his complaint, OCR already interpreted Title IX to protect students from discrimination based on gender identity.  This was well known to public school districts.  An unpublished OCR letter on G.G.’s complaint stated Title IX applied to this matter.  The school district disagreed and the case went to a federal district court (trial court).  After the trial court rejected G.G.’s claim of discrimination, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held it applied the wrong standard to the case.  The Fourth Circuit stated the trial court must defer to the enforcing agency’s (OCR’s) interpretation of the statute it enforces.

After the Trump Administration released its new guidance on February 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order on March 6, 2017 sending the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision taking the new guidance into account.  The G.G. complaint raised both statutory and Constitutional law claims so the courts below could decide this in several different ways.

What is the status and effect of the Texas preliminary injunction case?

On March 3, 2017, the states which filed suit to challenge enforcement of the Obama Administration guidance voluntarily dismissed this case in light of the Trump Administration guidance, so that case is over.

Are there any lawsuits pending in Pennsylvania regarding transgender students?
Yes.

  1. On October 6, 2016, several transgender plaintiffs sued Pine-Richland School District for formally adopting a requirement that students use either the facilities that correspond to their biological sex or unisex facilities. This lawsuit will work its way up through the federal court system.  The students allege violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
    On February 27, 2017, the court issued a preliminary injunction against the school district and in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, holding they are likely to succeed on the claim that a resolution forcing them to use restrooms which either are single-user or those corresponding with their biological sex violates their right to Equal Protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
  1. On March 21, 2017, a cisgender male student sued Boyertown Area School District for permitting a transgender student who is anatomically female to use the boy’s locker room to change for gym class. The school board had not adopted a formal policy on this issue. This lawsuit will work its way up through the federal court system.  The student alleges violations of his Constitutional right to bodily privacy when using locker rooms and restrooms designated for boys because transgender students who are anatomically female but identify as male are permitted to use the facilities designated for boys. He asserts he has been subjected to a sexually hostile environment in violation of Title IX.  He also asserts that various statutory provisions requiring facilities be provided for boys and girls or men and women are based on the anatomy of the users and the practice in Boyertown violates these statutes.  This case is so new that there has not yet been a formal response by the school district.

What is the status of other lawsuits in the news?
Federal courts in Ohio and Wisconsin have issued preliminary injunctions against school districts.  These orders prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and so operate in favor of the position of transgender student plaintiffs.

In Illinois, cisgender students filed a lawsuit against a school district for allowing transgender students to use facilities aligned with their gender identity.  They argue that this violates their U.S. Constitutional right to privacy.  The cisgender plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent transgender students from using sex-segregated facilities aligned with their gender identity.  A federal court Magistrate Judge recommended against granting this injunction.  This will be finally decided by a district court judge.

PSBA

Policies
PSBA policy services writes and issues legally compliant policies for school districts to use.   PSBA has received model policies and feedback from stakeholders on each side of this important issue passionately arguing that PSBA should issue a policy guide on transgender students and sex-segregated facilities.  PSBA is still unable to issue a policy guide on this. The law is not only unsettled, but there are active cases supporting opposite views which will decide this one way or the other.  For this reason, we have urged local school districts to develop procedures to work with transgender students.  If a local school district wishes to adopt policy, we recommend they do so in consultation with their solicitor and the community.  We urge them to be sensitive to the needs of transgender students, a vulnerable community who need protection and support.

Platform
PSBA’s members have not chosen to adopt a platform position in this area, although some items were put forth in 2016.

Training
PSBA has offered live training to members in Spring Legal Roundup, School Leadership Conference and at the Solicitors’ Symposium.  One of these trainings is available for free through the Training portal.

Articles and up-to-the-minute ‘blasts'
Look to DailyEDition, the Bulletin and emails for information on transgender issues.

RESOURCES AND LINKS TO ORDERS AND OPINIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE

PSBA Training Portal – Video CFR-109 Supporting Transgender Students
https://training.psba.org/ets/store/
Includes live training session, articles and materials regarding transgender students.

U.S. Supreme Court Remanded Virginia Transgender Case to 4th Circuit
G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board,
No. 15-2056 (4th Cir. 2016)
Complaint: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gg-v-gloucester-complaint
April 19, 2016 Opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/court-opinion-4th-circuit-sides-with-transgender-high-school-student-suing-school-board-for-access-to-boys-bathroom/1960/

Supreme Court Docket in G.G. Order of March 6, 2017
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-273.htm

Texas injunction case
State of Texas v. United States of America, No. 7:16-cv-00054-O (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas 2016)

August 21, 2016 preliminary injunction order in Texas case https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Texas_et_al_v._U.S._et_al_-_Nationwide_PI_(08-21-16).pdf

March 3, 2017:  Voluntarily Dismissed due to Rescission of Obama Guidance and Statement Departments of Justice and Education Will no Longer Rely on Interpretation
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/gov.uscourts.txnd.273901.128.0.pdf

Pennsylvania lawsuit by transgender students against public school district
Evancho, et al v. Pine-Richland School District, et al,
No. 2:16-cv-01537 (W.D. Pa. 2016)

September 12, 2016 resolution adopted (9/13/16 article)
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/north/2016/09/13/Pine-Richland-school-board-switches-bathroom-policy-for-transgender-students-pittsburgh/stories/201609130146

This resolution agreed to by a majority of the board of directors of the Pine-Richland School District indicates our support to return to the long-standing practice of providing sex-specific facility usage. All students will have the choice of using either the facilities that correspond to their biological sex or unisex facilities. This practice will remain in place until such time that a policy may be developed and approved.

 October 6, 2016 complaint by transgender students alleging violation of Title IX and right to Equal Protection under the U.S. Constitution
http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/evancho_pa_20161006_complaint_0.pdf

November 14, 2016:  Pine-Richland’s Motion to Dismiss students’ case
https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/reports/Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf?BzCIjheDHMSMqcaGtl2M5diFUSzBuCT8

February 27, 2017:  Court enters preliminary injunction on behalf of Pine-Richland plaintiffs

Pennsylvania lawsuit by cisgender male student against public school district
March 21, 2017: Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, et al, No. 5:17-cv-01249-EGS (E.D. 2017)
Doe Complaint –
https://independencelaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1-COMPLAINT-against-BOYERTOWN-AREA-SCHOOL-DISTRICT-DR.-BRETT-COOPER-DR.-E.-WAYNE-FOLEY-DR.-RICHARD-FAIDLEY-filed-by-JOEL-DOE-3-21-2017.pdf

Miscellaneous recent cases nationwide

  • Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, et a, No. 16-cv-943-PP (E.D. WI 2016)
    September 22, 2016: Preliminary injunction granting transgender student use of facilities congruent with gender identity: http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/33-Order-Granting-PI.pdf
    (
    Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals have denied motions from the school district seeking stays of the preliminary injunction pending its appeal of this preliminary injunction.  Oral argument before the Seventh Circuit is scheduled for Wednesday, March 29, 2017.)
  • Students and Parents for Privacy, et al v. U.S. Department of Education, et al, 16-cv-4945 (N.D. Ill. 2016)
    October 18, 2016:  Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court should deny plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction against implementation of the school district policy which allows transgender students use of facilities congruent with gender identity.
    http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000157-d93c-dc39-a7df-f9bf7d1e0002

NSBA-generated information