NachtLaw, P.C. 
  • Home
  • About
    • Success Stories
  • Our Team
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page

Transgender Issues at School in Illinois

On behalf of NachtLaw, P.C. | May 17, 2016 | Nacht Law in the News

Transgender issues have been in the news a great deal lately, particularly in the educational context. In Illinois, a group of parents has brought a lawsuit challenging the District’s decision to allow a transgendered male student access to the girl’s locker room.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, the group contends that the actions of the Department of Education and Palatine-based Township High School District 211 “trample students’ privacy” rights and create an “intimidating and hostile environment” for students who share the locker rooms and restrooms with the transgender student.

“Students have an expectation of privacy in restrooms and locker rooms, and that expectation is violated when a school puts the opposite-sex student in those kinds of private and intimate facilities,” said Jeremy Tedesco, attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious legal advocacy group representing the plaintiffs”.

This lawsuit raises the important question of whether the Departments of Justice and Education have overreached by importing “gender identity” into Title IX’s definition of “sex”. At least one Appeals Court Judge thinks so.

In a dissenting opinion in G. G. v. Gloucester County School Board, Fourth Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer expressed his opinion that they had. In that case, G.G., a transgendered female who identified as a boy, had been denied use of the boy’s restroom and directed to use the several unisex, single-use restrooms in the school. The trial court held that G.G. did not have a claim for sex discrimination under Title IX. The Fourth Circuit panel overruled the trial court’s dismissal. In his dissent, Judge Niemeyer pointed out that Title IX allows for separate living facilities, restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities “on the basis of sex,” not gender identity, so long as the facilities are “comparable”. He then took the majority to task for ignoring this statutory language and rejecting the School District’s provision of sex- and gender-identity-neutral bathrooms for use by all students.

“This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result. The recent Office for Civil Rights letter, moreover, which is not law but which is the only authority on which the majority relies, states more than the majority acknowledges. In the sentence following the sentence on which the majority relies, the letter states that, to accommodate transgender students, schools are encouraged “to offer the use of gender-neutral, individual-user facilities to any student who does not want to use shared sex-segregated facilities [as permitted by Title IX’s regulations].” This appears to approve the course that G.G.’s school followed when it created unisex restrooms in addition to the boys’ and girls’ restrooms it already had. Title IX and its implementing regulations are not ambiguous. In recognition of physiological privacy and safety concerns, they allow schools to provide “separate living facilities for the different sexes,” 20 U.S.C. § 1686, provided that the facilities are “proportionate” and “comparable,” 34 C.F.R. § 106.32(b), and to provide “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” again provided that the facilities are “comparable,” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33. Because the school’s policy that G.G. challenges in this action comports with Title IX and its regulations, I would affirm the district court’s dismissal of G.G.’s Title IX claim”.

Certainly, this issue will continue to be litigated. As Judge Niemeyer’s dissent points out, there are competing interests for privacy and safety when “sex” and “gender identity” are not synonymous, particularly when children are involved. And when the middle road is rejected out of hand, the result serves no one.

Find out what the Chicago Tribune has to say about the issue here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-transgender-palatine-high-school-lawsuit-met-20160504-story.html

Get the court documents here:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/152056.P.pdf

Recent Posts

  • What to do when your child gets bullied
  • Jury awards husband and wife $11.4M over workplace discrimination
  • Can an employer discriminate against overweight employees?
  • Employers continue to discriminate against breastfeeding workers
  • 4 examples of age discrimination you might not notice

Archives

  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • October 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012

Categories

  • Age Discrimination
  • American values
  • Articles
  • blog
  • Business Litigation
  • Comments
  • Disability
  • Employment Law
  • Events
  • Firm News
  • Nacht Law in the News
  • Title IX
  • Unemployment Benefits

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

FindLaw Network

Don’t Hesitate

No substitute exists for sound legal counsel.

ANN ARBOR, MI

101 North Main Street, Suite 555
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Phone: 888-312-7173

ANN ARBOR, MI MAP & DIRECTIONS

TRAVERSE CITY, MI

120 E Front St
2nd Floor Loft
Traverse City, MI 49684

Phone: 888-312-7173

TRAVERSE CITY, MI MAP & DIRECTIONS

BIRMINGHAM, MI

401 South Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 460
Birmingham, MI 48009

Phone: 888-312-7173

BIRMINGHAM, MI MAP & DIRECTIONS

TOLEDO, OH

One Seagate
Suite 685
Toledo, OH 43604

Phone: 888-312-7173

TOLEDO, OH MAP & DIRECTIONS
REVIEW US
Pay Invoice Visa Discover AM EX Law Pay
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow

© 2019 NachtLaw, P.C.. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters