Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board
Published, Fourth Circuit (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school policy that prohibits a transgender student from using the school restroom corresponding to their gender identity violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Facts:
- Gavin Grimm, who was assigned female at birth, has identified as a male from a young age.
- During his freshman year at Gloucester High School, Grimm began a medical transition, receiving a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from his psychologist who recommended he be treated as a male, including being allowed to use the boys' restroom.
- For his sophomore year, the high school principal initially granted Grimm permission to use the boys' restrooms.
- Grimm used the boys' restrooms for approximately seven weeks without any incident or complaint from other students.
- Following complaints from adults in the community, the Gloucester County School Board adopted a policy limiting restroom use to students' "corresponding biological genders" and requiring students with "gender identity issues" to use separate, single-stall facilities.
- The policy forced Grimm to use either the nurse's restroom or newly constructed single-stall restrooms, which he found stigmatizing and inconvenient, leading him to develop urinary tract infections from restroom avoidance.
- Grimm continued his transition, undergoing hormone therapy and chest reconstruction surgery, and eventually obtained a Virginia court order and amended birth certificate legally identifying him as male.
- Despite being presented with Grimm's updated, legally valid birth certificate, the School Board refused to update his official school records to reflect his male gender.
Procedural Posture:
- Gavin Grimm sued the Gloucester County School Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The district court dismissed Grimm's Title IX claim and denied his motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Grimm, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the district court's dismissal.
- The School Board, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case after the executive branch withdrew relevant administrative guidance.
- On remand, Grimm filed an amended complaint, and the district court denied the Board's motion to dismiss.
- After Grimm added a claim regarding his school records, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Grimm on all claims.
- The Gloucester County School Board, as appellant, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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 board's policy that prohibits a transgender male student from using the boys' restrooms violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Floyd
Yes, the school board's policy violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The policy is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause for two independent reasons: it is a classification based on sex, and transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class. The policy fails this scrutiny because the Board's asserted interest in protecting student privacy is not substantially related to the policy, but is instead based on 'sheer conjecture and abstraction' and unfounded prejudice. The policy also violates Title IX because, under the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County, discriminating against a person for being transgender is discrimination 'on the basis of sex.' The Board's policy treated Grimm worse than his similarly situated peers and caused him significant physical and emotional harm, and the Title IX regulation permitting sex-separated facilities does not authorize this type of discrimination. The Board's refusal to update Grimm's school records is similarly a violation of both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
Concurring - Judge Wynn
Yes. The Board's policy is arbitrary and rests on the invented and medically meaningless term 'biological gender.' The policy is also pretextual, as it creates the same privacy harms it claims to prevent by forcing a student who appears male into the girls' restroom. This policy is indistinguishable from the 'separate-but-equal' doctrine of racial segregation, as it sends a message of inferiority and inflicts a deep and ineradicable stigma on vulnerable students. The Board's justifications are hypothetical and unsupported, revealing that the policy is motivated by a bare dislike of those who are different, which the Constitution forbids.
Dissenting - Judge Niemeyer
No, the school board's policy does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. Title IX and its implementing regulations explicitly permit educational institutions to provide separate facilities, including restrooms, 'on the basis of sex,' which has historically and legally meant biological sex. The school's policy complies with this provision by providing separate facilities for biological males and females, while also accommodating transgender students with private, unisex restrooms. Under the Equal Protection Clause, Grimm is not similarly situated to biological males for the purpose of restroom usage due to anatomical differences that are the very reason for sex-separated facilities. Therefore, the school's policy is substantially related to the important government interest of protecting student privacy and is not unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Fourth Circuit's position that discrimination against transgender individuals is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. By extending the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County to the Title IX context and independently holding that transgender people are a quasi-suspect class, the court provides robust protections for transgender students. This ruling establishes a powerful precedent within the circuit against policies that exclude transgender students from facilities that align with their gender identity and strengthens a growing consensus among federal courts on this issue.
