Transgender Student Wins Decision in Locker Room Case

Another federal court has sided with transgender students and ruled that Title IX and the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause protect their right to use sex-specific facilities that correspond to their gender identity. The plaintiff in this case, who goes by his initials M.A.B., sued the board of education in Talbot County, Maryland, over his high school's decision to prohibit him from using the boys' locker room to change for gym class. M.A.B. was required instead to use gender neutral bathrooms for this purpose, even though that facility does not have lockers, showers, or benches, and is located remotely from the boys' locker room. The school board moved to dismiss his Title IX and Equal Protection claims on grounds that they fail to state a claim covered by either law, but the court has denied that motion, paving the way for litigation to continue.

The court applied the sex-stereotyping theory of sex discrimination to conclude that the school board violated Title IX, reasoning that M.A.B. is excluded from the locker room because his transgender status contravenes stereotypes about sex and gender. Addressing his constitutional claim, the court applied intermediate scrutiny to the school board's policy because it singles out M.A.B. for reasons related to sex and because transgender individuals are a quasi-suspect class. The court determined that the exclusion policy did not survive intermediate scrutiny because it is not substantially related to the school board's interest in protecting student's privacy, since the locker room has partitioned stalls for changing clothes, and toilets with stalls and doors. A student who wants privacy can elect to take advantage of these features without experiencing the same kind of stigma and psychological harm that M.A.B. faces when he is mandated to use single-user facilities.

In the same decision that the court denied the school board's motion to dismiss, the court also considered M.A.B.'s motion for a preliminary injunction that would allow him to use the locker room while the litigation is pending.  The court denied this motion on the grounds that P.I. remedy requires a showing of irreparable harm, which M.A.B. cannot satisfy because he is not currently not taking physical education or competing in sports.  Though he will take P.E. next school year, the court seemed confident that it would issue its decision on the merits by then, which would render the preliminary injunction unnecessary. If the court is wrong and the case is still open when M.A.B. starts school in the fall, he can refile his motion for a preliminary injunction at that point.