Evancho v. Pine-Richland School District
2017 WL 770619, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26767, 237 F. Supp. 3d 267 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school policy requiring transgender students to use restrooms corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, rather than their gender identity, is likely a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as such a classification is subject to intermediate scrutiny and is not substantially related to an important government interest.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Juliet Evancho, Elissa Ridenour, and A.S. are transgender high school seniors at Pine-Richland High School.
- For several years, the plaintiffs have lived all aspects of their lives consistently with their gender identities (Evancho and Ridenour as girls, A.S. as a boy).
- Prior to the challenged policy, the school district, its staff, and students treated the plaintiffs consistently with their gender identities, and the plaintiffs used the common school restrooms corresponding with their gender identities.
- The plaintiffs' use of the restrooms that aligned with their gender identities occurred for years without any reported incidents of misconduct, disruption, or invasion of privacy.
- In response to community debate and parental inquiries, the Pine-Richland School Board passed "Resolution 2."
- Resolution 2 mandated that all students use either single-user unisex restrooms or the common restrooms corresponding to their "biological sex," which the district interpreted as sex assigned at birth.
- As a result of Resolution 2, the plaintiffs were prohibited from using the restrooms matching their gender identity and were required to use restrooms designated for the opposite gender or separate, single-user facilities.
- The plaintiffs experienced serious emotional distress, marginalization, and stigmatization due to the new policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Three transgender high school students sued the Pine-Richland School District in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- The Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the District's "Resolution 2" bathroom policy violated their rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction seeking to prevent the enforcement of Resolution 2.
- The School District filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims.
- The court considered both motions simultaneously.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school district's policy that prohibits transgender students from using common restrooms consistent with their gender identity, instead requiring them to use restrooms corresponding to their sex assigned at birth or single-user facilities, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hornak, J.
Yes, the school district's policy likely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Governmental classifications based on transgender status are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which requires the government to provide an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' showing that the classification serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to achieving them. The court determined that transgender status is a quasi-suspect classification based on a history of discrimination, the immutability of the characteristic, its lack of bearing on ability to contribute to society, and the political powerlessness of the group. The District's proffered justifications—protecting student privacy and responding to community norms—were not exceedingly persuasive because there was no evidence of any actual or threatened disruption or invasion of privacy caused by the plaintiffs. The physical layout of the high school's restrooms, with locking stalls and partitions, already protected the privacy interests of all students during excretory functions. The court concluded that enforcing Resolution 2 against the plaintiffs caused them significant harm while failing to advance any important government interest.
Analysis:
This decision is significant as a federal district court ruling that applies intermediate scrutiny to classifications based on transgender status under the Equal Protection Clause. By treating transgender status as a quasi-suspect class akin to sex, the court elevated the level of justification required from government actors seeking to enact discriminatory policies. This case emphasizes a fact-intensive analysis, rejecting generalized or hypothetical fears about privacy in favor of the actual, on-the-ground reality, where no issues had occurred. The ruling provides a strong precedent for challenging similar bathroom-ban policies on constitutional grounds, shifting the legal focus from abstract concerns to the concrete evidence and the tangible harm inflicted upon transgender individuals.
