Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-17-year-old transgender student’s motion seeking issuance of preliminary injunction in action alleging that defendant-school board’s refusal to allow plaintiff to use boy’s restroom violated Title IX and Equal Protection Clause under 14th Amendment, where said refusal was based on plaintiff’s transgender status, and where defendant believed that plaintiff’s mere presence in boy’s restroom would invade privacy rights of his male classmates. Plaintiff could properly assert viable cause of action under Title IX, even though his transgender status was not specifically mentioned as protected classification in said Act, where plaintiff successfully demonstrated likelihood of success based on sex-stereotyping theory. Moreover, because defendant’s policy is based on sex, applicable standard of review was heightened scrutiny and not rational basis, and defendant failed to provide genuine and exceedingly persuasive justification for its policy/belief, especially where plaintiff had used boy’s restroom for six months without incident until teacher reported plaintiff’s use of said bathroom. Also, for purposes of issuance of preliminary injunction, plaintiff showed that harms to him in terms of medical ramifications arising out of defendant’s refusal to allow him use of boy’s restroom outweighed any perceived harm to student population and their privacy interests.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
School Law