(412) 242.4400
info@mbm-law.net
LLCbyMBM
MBM Law Logo

LITIGATION CHRONOLOGY TRANSGENDER STUDENTS’ ACCESS TO SEX-SEGREGATED FACILITIES (LAST UPDATED 12/18/17)

Christina Lane

Johnston v. Univ. of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ.

  • United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
  • 97 F. Supp. 3d 657 Johnston Decision
  • 3:13-cv-00213-KRG
  • Factual Background: transgender male student sought use of sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms designated for men at the university
  • 3/31/15 District Court Decision: student’s claims against the university based upon Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause were dismissed
  • Current Status: case was terminated on 3/30/16 due to settlement reached while student’s appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was pending

G.G. v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd.

  • Factual Background: transgender male student seeks use of boy’s restroom at the school district
  • 9/17/15 District Court Decision: student’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied, and his Title IX claim was dismissed (District Court has not yet addressed the student’s Equal Protection claim)
  • Current Status: student appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (see below); the District Court matter is presently stayed during the pendency of the appeal 

G.G. v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd.

  • Factual Background: transgender male student seeks use of boy’s restroom at the school district
  • 4/19/16 Circuit Court Decision: the District Court’s denial of the student’s motion for preliminary injunction (see above) was vacated, and the dismissal of the Title IX claim was reversed; the case was remanded back to the District Court which then granted the student’s motion for preliminary injunction
  • Current Status: the School Board’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was permitted on 10/29/16; the case was remanded back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on 3/6/17; the parties’ opening briefs were filed on 5/8/17; amicus briefs have been filed since 5/15/17; and the parties’ reply briefs were filed on 6/2/17; oral argument before the Court of Appeals is tentatively scheduled for 9/12/17 – 9/15/17

Texas v. United States

  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  • 201 F. Supp. 3d 811  Texas Decision
  • Factual Background: the State of Texas argued that the interpretation of Title IX by the U.S. Departments of Education (“DOE”) and Justice (“DOJ”) as provided in a 5/13/16 Dear Colleague Letter (which required student access to sex-segregated facilities based upon gender identity) was unlawful
  • 8/21/16 District Court Decision: Texas’ motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, and the DOE and DOJ were prohibited from enforcing the 5/13/16 Dear Colleague Letter nationwide
  • Current Status: the case was terminated by the parties on 3/30/17 after the Trump Administration withdrew the 5/13/16 DOE/DOJ Dear Colleague Letter on 2/22/17

Carcańo v. McCrory

  • United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
  • 203 F. Supp. 3d 614   Carcano Decision
  • Factual Background: two transgender students at UNC challenged North Carolina House Bill 2 which required public agencies to ensure that sex-segregated facilities be used by persons based upon their “biological sex” which was defined as the sex listed on their birth certificate
  • 8/26/16 District Court Decision: the students’ motion for a preliminary injunction was granted – the Court found that the students had shown that they were likely to succeed on their Title IX claim but had not shown that they were likely to succeed on their Equal Protection claim
  • Current Status: an appeal to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was voluntarily dismissed by the parties on 4/20/17 after House Bill 2 was repealed by House Bill 142 on 3/30/17; on 4/28/17, Plaintiffs indicated that they intend to file an Amended Complaint because, although House Bill 142 purports to repeal House Bill 2, House Bill 142 still discriminates against transgender individuals and perpetuates many of House Bill 2’s harms and stigmatization 

Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1

  • Factual Background: transgender male student seeks use of the boy’s restroom at the school district
  • 9/22/16 District Court Decision: the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction was granted – the Court found that the student might succeed on his Title IX claim and had alleged sufficient facts to support his Equal Protection claim; the School District appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (see below)
  • 5/30/17 Seventh Circuit Decision: the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the transgender student
  • Current Status: all discovery was stayed until 6/12/17 (the last day of school); the parties submitted a modified scheduling order for the Court’s consideration on 6/27/17

Bd. of Educ. [of the Highland Local Sch. Dist.] v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ.

  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
  • 208 F. Supp. 3d 850   Highland Decision
  • Factual Background: transgender female student seeks use of girl’s restroom at the school district
  • 9/26/16 District Court Decision: the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction was granted – the Court found that the student is likely to succeed regarding both her Title IX claim and her Equal Protection claim
  • Current Status: the School District appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where the student’s response brief is due on 7/19/17 and the District’s reply brief is due on 8/2/17; the District Court matter is now stayed pending a decision by the Court of Appeals

Students & Parents for Privacy v. United States Dep’t of Educ.

  • Factual Background: Students & Parents for Privacy filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to only permit the use of sex-segregated facilities, including locker rooms, on the basis of biological sex (not gender identity)
  • 10/18/16 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge: the Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court Judge deny the motion for a preliminary injunction because the Students & Parents for Privacy did not show a likelihood of success concerning alleged violations of the constitutional right to privacy or Title IX
  • Current Status: the Students & Parents for Privacy timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation; and a status conference is currently scheduled for 7/20/17

Evancho v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist.

  • United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
  • 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26767 Evancho Decision
  • Factual Background: three transgender students seek use of restrooms that correspond with their gender identity at the school district
  • 2/27/17 District Court Decision: the students’ motion for a preliminary injunction was granted in part – the Court found that the students are likely to succeed regarding their Equal Protection claim but not their Title IX claim
  • Current Status: the District Court’s decision to grant the students’ preliminary injunction was not appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; motions for summary judgment as to matters that can be addressed at this juncture must be filed by 8/31/17

Doe v. Boyerstown Area Sch. Dist.

  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • 5:17-cv-01249  Doe Amended Complaint
  • Factual Background: various cisgender students allege violations of their constitutional right to privacy and Title IX based upon observing and/or being observed by a transgender male while changing clothes in the male locker room at the school district
  • Current Status: the cisgender students filed a motion requesting preliminary injunctive relief on 5/17/17; the District’s responded to the motion on 6/9/17; discovery concerning the motion must be completed by 7/7/17; an evidentiary hearing concerning the motion will be held on 7/17/17; and oral argument concerning the motion is scheduled for 8/11/17; also, on 6/16/17, the School District Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Plaintiffs must now respond to the same

Contact Roger Foley at rwf@mbm-law.net or 412.242.4400 head of our Litigation Team with any questions your district is facing.

Christina L. Lane

Christina Lane is an accomplished school, municipal, labor and employment attorney representing public sector employers. She has extensive knowledge and experience with Title IX and often serves as a third-party investigator.

Categories

Archives