SLIDE 1
1
F
E DE RAL AGE NCY G UIDANCE & T HE L AW
A Sho wdo wn in the Co urts 2016 Sc ho o l L a w Pra c tic e Se mina r Ope ning Ge ne ra l Se ssio n
T
- day’s Me e t
F RAL A GE NCY G UIDANCE & E DE HE L T AW A Sho wdo wn in - - PDF document
F RAL A GE NCY G UIDANCE & E DE HE L T AW A Sho wdo wn in - - PDF document
F RAL A GE NCY G UIDANCE & E DE HE L T AW A Sho wdo wn in the Co urts 2016 Sc ho o l L a w Pra c tic e Se mina r Ope ning Ge ne ra l Se ssio n J OIN T HE C ONVE RSAT ION T odays Me e t https:/ / to da ysme e t.c o m/
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
3
DE
AR COL L E AGUE L E T T E R ON T RANSGE NDE R ST UDE NT S
On Ma y 13, 2016, the U.S. De pts. o f E duc a tio n a nd Justic e jo intly issue d a “De a r Co lle a g ue ” le tte r re g a rding tra nsg e nde r stude nts. T he le tte r sta te s tha t:
T
itle I X’ s pro hib itio n o n se x disc rimina tio n re q uire s sc ho o ls to tre a t tra nsg e nde r stude nts—tho se who se g e nde r ide ntity is diffe re nt fro m the se x the y we re a ssig ne d a t b irth—in the sa me ma nne r tha t it tre a ts
- the r stude nts o f the sa me g e nde r ide ntity.
http:/ / www2.e d.g o v/ a b o ut/ o ffic e s/ list/ o c r/ le tte rs/ c o lle a g ue -201605-title -ix-tra nsg e nd e r.pdf)
DE
AR COL L E AGUE L E T T E R ON T RANSGE NDE R ST UDE NT S
Stude nt o r pa re nt no tic e tha t a stude nt will a sse rt a ne w
g e nde r ide ntity is suffic ie nt to re q uire a sc ho o l to b e g in tre a ting the stude nt c o nsiste nt with the stude nt’ s g e nde r ide ntity.
Sc ho o ls c a nno t re q uire a me dic a l dia g no sis, e vide nc e o f
tre a tme nt, o r a ne w b irth c e rtific a te .
Sc ho o ls c a nno t disc ipline o r e xc lude tra nsg e nde r stude nts
fro m a c tivitie s fo r b e ha vio r c o nsiste nt with g e nde r ide ntity o r tha t do e s no t c o nfo rm to ste re o typic a l no tio ns o f ma sc ulinity
- r fe mininity.
F
E RPA pro hib its sc ho o ls fro m pub lic ly disc lo sing a tra nsg e nde r stude nt's b irth na me o r b io lo g ic a l se x; sc ho o ls sho uld c ha ng e the g e nde r o n sc ho o l re c o rds a nd dire c to rie s whe n a ske d.
SLIDE 4
4
DE
AR COL L E AGUE L E T T E R ON T RANSGE NDE R ST UDE NT S
E
lig ib ility fo r sing le -se x te a ms ma y no t re ly o n o ve rly b ro a d g e ne ra liza tio ns o r ste re o type s a b o ut the diffe re nc e s b e twe e n tra nsg e nde r stude nts a nd o the r stude nts o f the sa me se x.
Sc ho o ls must e nsure no ndisc rimina tio n o n the b a sis
- f se x inc lude s pro viding tra nsg e nde r stude nts e q ua l
a c c e ss to e duc a tio na l pro g ra ms a nd a c tivitie s e ve n in c irc umsta nc e s in whic h o the r stude nts, pa re nts, o r c o mmunity me mb e rs ra ise o b je c tio ns o r c o nc e rns.
T
he de sire to a c c o mmo da te o the rs’ disc o mfo rt c a nno t justify a po lic y tha t sing le s o ut a nd disa dva nta g e s a pa rtic ula r c la ss o f stude nts.
OCR’S E
VOL UT ION ON T HIS I SSUE
Apr
il 3, 2014: OCR Chie f Ca the rine L
ha mo n te lls COSA to a dvise sc ho o l b o a rd c lie nts to a llo w tra nsg e nde r stude nts to use the b a thro o m o f the g e nde r with whic h the y ide ntify.
Apr
il, 29 2014 Q&A on T itle IX and Se xual Viole nc e : “T
itle I X’ s se x disc rimina tio n pro hib itio n e xte nds to c la ims o f disc rimina tio n b a se d o n g e nde r ide ntity o r fa ilure to c o nfo rm to ste re o typic a l no tio ns o f ma sc ulinity o r fe mininity….”
Jan. 7, 2015 opinion le tte r
inte r pr e ting T itle IX bathr
- om
r e gulations to tr ansge nde r individuals: “Whe n a sc ho o l
e le c ts to se pa ra te o r tre a t stude nts diffe re ntly o n the b a sis o f se x . . . a sc ho o l g e ne ra lly must tre a t tra nsg e nde r stude nts c o nsiste nt with the ir g e nde r ide ntity.”
SLIDE 5
5
OCR’S E
VOL UT ION ON T HIS I SSUE
Prio r to April 2014, OCR ha d no t ta ke n a fo rma l
po sitio n in a ny na tio nwide g uida nc e . Ho we ve r, b e g inning in 2013, OCR re so lve d se ve ra l c o mpla ints with sc ho o l syste ms thro ug h re so lutio n a g re e me nts in whic h the sc ho o l syste ms in q ue stio n a g re e to tre a t the c o mpla ining stude nt c o nsiste nt with his o r he r g e nde r ide ntity:
Arc a dia Unifie d Sc ho o l Distric t, Ca lifo rnia , July
2013
Do wne y Unifie d Sc ho o l Distric t, Ca lifo rnia ,
Oc to b e r 2014
T
- wnship Hig h Sc ho o l Distric t 211, Pa la tine , I
llino is, De c e mb e r 2015
OCR/ DOJ’ s g uida nc e do c ume nt vio la te s the fe de ra lism
a nd se pa ra tio n-o f-po we rs g ua ra nte e s o f the U.S. Co nstitutio n.
OCR/ DOJ’ s g uida nc e do c ume nt, whic h inc o rpo ra te s
“g e nde r ide ntity” into T itle I X’ s de finitio n o f “se x,” is a le g isla tive rule a do pte d witho ut the pro c e dure s ma nda te d in the Administra tive Pro c e dure Ac t.
Allo wing tra nsg e nde r stude nts in the re stro o m o r lo c ke r
ro o m o f the ir g e nde r ide ntity pro duc e s se xua l ha ra ssme nt a nd c re a te s a ho stile e nviro nme nt o n the b a sis o f se x unde r T itle I X.
Allo wing tra nsg e nde r stude nts in the re stro o m o r lo c ke r
ro o m o f the ir g e nde r ide ntity vio la te s the o the r stude nts’ c o nstitutio na l rig ht to b o dily priva c y.
ARGUME
NT S CHAL L E NGING OCR
SLIDE 6
6
OCR/ DOJ’ s g uida nc e do c ume nts, whic h inc o rpo ra te s
“g e nde r ide ntity” into T itle I X’ s de finitio n o f “se x,” a re a vio la tio n o f the Spe nding Cla use in Artic le 1, Se c tio n 8
- f the U.S. Co nstitutio n.
Allo wing tra nsg e nde r stude nts in the re stro o m o r lo c ke r
ro o m o f the ir g e nde r ide ntity vio la te s the o the r pa re nts’ c o nstitutio na l rig ht to dire c t the e duc a tio n a nd upb ring ing o f the ir c hildre n.
T
itle I X’ s re g ula tio ns sta te tha t sc ho o ls ma y pro vide “se pa ra te b ut e q ua l” fa c ilitie s o n the b a sis o f se x, a nd the b o ys’ a nd g irls’ lo c ke r ro o ms a re e q ua l.
Allo wing tra nsg e nde r stude nts in the re stro o m o r lo c ke r
ro o m o f the ir g e nde r ide ntity b urde ns the o the r stude nts’ pra c tic e o f re lig io n.
ARGUME
NT S CHAL L E NGING OCR
OCR c la ims tha t its inte rpre ta tio n o f its o wn
re g ula tio ns is e ntitle d to de fe re nc e unde r Aue r v. Ro bbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997).
I
n Aue r, po lic e o ffic e rs b ro ug ht suit a lle g ing the y we re e ntitle d to o ve rtime pa y.
Co mmissio ne r a rg ue d o ffic e rs we re e xe mpt unde r
F a ir L a b o r Sta nda rds Ac t (“F L SA”) a s e xe c utive , a dministra tive , o r pro fe ssio na l e mplo ye e s.
T
he tria l c o urt he ld tha t the po lic e o ffic e rs we re e xe mpt unde r F L SA a nd Co urt o f Appe a ls a ffirme d.
I
S OCR’S I NT E RPRE T AT ION E NT IT L E D T O DE F E RE NCE?
SLIDE 7
7
Supre me Co urt g ra nte d c e rtio rari to de te rmine
whe the r the Se c re ta ry o f L a b o r ha d a de q ua te ly inte rpre te d the “sa la ry-b a sis” te st re la te d to the e xe mpt sta tus o f a n e mplo ye e .
T
he Supre me Co urt sta te d tha t “[b ]e c a use the sa la ry-b a sis te st is a c re a ture o f the Se c re ta ry’ s o wn re g ula tio ns, his inte rpre ta tio n o f it is, unde r o ur jurisprude nc e , c o ntro lling unle ss pla inly e rro ne o us o r inc o nsiste nt with the re g ula tio n.” I d., a t 461.
I
S OCR’S I NT E RPRE T AT ION E NT IT L E D T O DE F E RE NCE?
T
- day’s Me e t
https:/ / to da ysme e t.c o m/ COSA2016
JOIN T
HE CONVE RSAT ION
SLIDE 8
8
5-2 b o a rd vo te to e nte r se ttle me nt a g re e me nt with OCR T
wo ho urs o f pub lic c o mme nts in fro nt o f a c ro wd o f a b o ut 250
T
hre e -ho ur c lo se d-do o r b o a rd me e ting
“Ba se d o n Stude nt A’ s re pre se nta tio n tha t she will c ha ng e in
priva te c ha ng ing sta tio ns in the g irls’ lo c ke r ro o ms, the Distric t a g re e s to pro vide Stude nt A a c c e ss to fe ma le lo c ke r ro o m fa c ilitie s a nd to ta ke ste ps to pro te c t the priva c y o f its stude nts b y insta lling a nd ma inta ining suffic ie nt priva c y c urta ins (priva te c ha ng ing sta tio ns) within the g irls’ lo c ke r ro o ms to a c c o mmo da te Stude nt A a nd a ny stude nts who wish to b e a ssure d o f priva c y while c ha ng ing .”
PAL
AT INE, I L L INOIS L IT IGAT ION
Applie s o nly to the stude nt in q ue stio n a nd is no t a
distric twide po lic y.
Distric t: "By re a c hing this mutua l a g re e me nt with
OCR, the thre a t o f furthe r litig a tio n spe c ific to the initia l c o mpla int ha s e nde d, a nd the distric t will re ta in full a c c e ss to its fe de ra l funds use d prima rily to se rve a t-risk stude nts.”
Distric t "c a te g o ric a lly re fute s the no tio n o f a ny
vio la tio n o f the la w o r fo rm o f disc rimina tio n."
PAL
AT INE, I L L INOIS L IT IGAT ION
SLIDE 9
9
SLIDE 10
10 So me o f the pa re nts re a c te d a ng rily a fte r the vo te a nd
a ppro a c he d the sc ho o l b o a rd until po lic e inte rve ne d.
A pa re nt a nd stude nt g ro up ha s file d suit a g a inst the De pt.
- f E
- d. a lle g ing tha t the re so lutio n a g re e me nt vio la te s o the r
stude nts’ priva c y rig hts a nd tha t the De pa rtme nt’ s inc lusio n
- f “g e nde r ide ntity” in T
itle I X’ s de finitio n o f “se x” vio la te s the la w.
ST
UDE NT S AND PARE NT S F OR PRIVACY V. U.S. DE P’T
. OF E
DUC ., NO. 16- 4945 (N.D. I L L
. F
IL E D MAY 4, 2016)
SLIDE 11
11
T
ra nsg e nde r stude nt b ro ug ht suit a g a inst sc ho o l distric t a lle g ing vio la tio n o f T itle I X a nd E q ua l Pro te c tio n Cla use .
Se pte mb e r 20, 2016: F
e de ra l distric t c o urt e nte rs injunc tio n re q uiring sc ho o l distric t to pe rmit tra nsg e nde r stude nt to use re stro o m c o nsiste nt with g e nde r ide ntity.
Orde r limite d to re stro o ms; do e s no t a pply to lo c ke r ro o ms.
WHIT
AKE R V. KE NOSHA UNIF IE D SCH. DIST
., U.S. DE
P’T OF E DUC . O F F ICE F OR CIVILR IGHT S
(F
IL E D MAY 12, 2016)
Se pt. 26, 2016: Co urt de nie d HL
SD’s motion fo r pre limina ry injunc tio n
b a rring e nfo rc e me nt o f E D/ DOJ’ s T itle I X g uida nc e a nd gr
ante d the inte r ve nor stude nt’s motion fo r a pre limina ry injunc tio n, o rde ring HL
SD to a llo w the stude nt to use the g irls’ re stro o m. “[N]o e vide nc e ” tha t the stude nt is like ly to vio la te o the r stude nts’ priva c y o r put the ir sa fe ty a t risk whe n using the g irls’ re stro o m: T he “[s]c ho o l distric ts tha t ha ve e nc o unte re d the se ve ry issue s ha ve b e e n a b le to inte g ra te tra nsg e nde r stude nts fully into the a c a de mic a nd so c ia l c o mmunity witho ut disruptio n, a nd c e rta inly witho ut the do o msda y sc e na rio s Hig hla nd pre dic ts, suc h a s se xua l pre da to rs e nte ring a n e le me nta ry-sc ho o l re stro o m.” T X distric t c o urt o rde r ha lting e nfo rc e me nt o f g uida nc e do e s no t a pply – OH no t a pa rty, a nd this litig a tio n b e g a n b e fo re tha t o rde r.
- BD. O F E
- DUC. O F HIGHL
AND L
- OCALSCH. DIST
. V. U.S. DE
P’T
. OF E
DUC., NO. 16- 524 (S.D. O HIO F IL E D JUNE 10, 2016)
SLIDE 12
12
A thre e -judg e pa ne l o f the F
- urth Circ uit Co urt o f
Appe a ls re lie d o n Aue r whe n it issue d its ruling o n April 19, 2016.
T
he pla intiff stude nt, G.G., is c ha lle ng ing a Bo a rd re so lutio n tha t re q uire s stude nts to use the re stro o m tha t c o rre spo nde d with the ir g e nde r a t b irth a nd a llo we d tra nsg e nde r stude nts to b e pro vide d “a n a lte rna tive a ppro pria te priva te fa c ility.”
T
he distric t c o urt dismisse d G.G.’ s c la im unde r T itle I X, c o nc luding tha t pro hib itio n o n disc rimina tio n o n the b a sis o f se x re fe rre d una mb ig uo usly to b io lo g ic a l se x, ra the r tha n g e nde r ide ntity.
G L
OUCE ST E R CO. SCHOOL BOARD V. G.G.
T
he F
- urth Circ uit Co urt o f Appe a ls re ve rse d the tria l
c o urt’ s ruling , o n the g ro unds tha t “the distric t c o urt did no t a c c o rd a ppro pria te de fe re nc e to the re le va nt De pa rtme nt o f E duc a tio n re g ula tio ns.”
T
he F
- urth Circ uit c o nc lude d tha t, “Altho ug h the
re g ula tio n ma y re fe r una mb ig uo usly to ma le s a nd fe ma le s, it is sile nt a s to ho w a sc ho o l sho uld de te rmine whe the r a tra nsg e nde r individua l is a ma le o r fe ma le fo r the purpo se o f a c c e ss to se x-se g re g a te d re stro o ms. … T he De pa rtme nt’ s inte rpre ta tio n re so lve s a mb ig uity b y pro viding tha t in the c a se o f a tra nsg e nde r individua l using a se x-se g re g a te d fa c ility, the individua l’ s se x a s ma le o r fe ma le is to b e g e ne ra lly de te rmine d b y re fe re nc e to the stude nt’ s g e nde r ide ntity.”
G L
OUCE ST E R CO. SCHOOL BOARD V. G.G.
SLIDE 13
13
T
he re fo re , the DOE ’ s inte rpre ta tio n o f the re g ula tio n is e ntitle d to de fe re nc e unde r Aue r.
On re ma nd, the distric t c o urt g ra nte d a G.G. a
pre limina ry injunc tio n, a llo wing him to use the b o ys’ re stro o m during his se nio r ye a r.
Ho we ve r, the SCOT
US g ra nte d (5-3) the Bo a rd’ s e me rg e nc y pe titio n se e king a sta y o f the F
- urth
Circ uit pa ne l’ s April 2016 ma nda te a nd the distric t c o urt’ s pre limina ry injunc tio n.
G L
OUCE ST E R CO. SCHOOL BOARD V. G.G.
T
he sta y will re ma in in e ffe c t pe nding the distric t’ s pe titio n fo r c e rtio ra ri, whic h wa s file d Aug ust 29.
I
f the pe titio n is de nie d, the sta y a uto ma tic a lly te rmina te s; if g ra nte d, the sta y te rmina te s upo n SCOT US’ ruling .
T
he issue s fo r re vie w:
whe the r the T
itle I X re g ula tio ns o n se pa ra tio n o f stude nts b y “se x” (34 C.F .R. 106.33) a re a mb ig uo us; a nd
if so , whe the r the De pa rtme nt o f E
duc a tio n’ s inte rpre ta tio n is e ntitle d to de fe re nc e unde r Aue r
- v. Ro bbins (1997).
G L
OUCE ST E R CO. SCHOOL BOARD V. G.G.
SLIDE 14
14
N.C.’S HOUSE BIL
L2
- N.C. Ge ne ra l Asse mb ly pa sse d a la w in Ma rc h 2016 tha t
sta te s: “L
- c a l b o a rds o f e duc a tio n sha ll re q uire e ve ry
multiple o c c upa nc y b a thro o m o r c ha ng ing fa c ility tha t is de sig na te d fo r stude nt use to b e de sig na te d fo r a nd use d
- nly b y stude nts b a se d o n the ir b io lo g ic a l se x.”
- Bio lo g ic a l se x is de fine d a s “[t]he physic a l c o nditio n o f
b e ing ma le o r fe ma le , whic h is sta te d o n a pe rso n's b irth c e rtific a te .”
- T
he la w c o ve rs b o th lo c ke r ro o ms a nd re stro o ms.
- I
t do e s no t pro hib it lo c a l b o a rds fro m “pro viding a c c o mmo da tio ns suc h a s sing le o c c upa nc y b a thro o m o r c ha ng ing fa c ilitie s o r c o ntro lle d use o f fa c ulty fa c ilitie s upo n a re q ue st due to spe c ia l c irc umsta nc e s …”
ACL U L
AWSUIT(M.D. N.C)
- T
he ACL U q uic kly file d suit a g a inst the Sta te a nd the Unive rsity syste m. T he individua l pla intiffs inc lude a tra nsg e nde r e mplo ye e a t UNC Cha pe l Hill, a tra nsg e nde r stude nt a t UNC Gre e nsb o ro , a nd a tra nsg e nde r hig h sc ho o l stude nt a t UNC Sc ho o l o f the Arts.
- T
he c la ims in the suit a re b ro ug ht unde r the 14th Ame ndme nt, a s a vio la tio n o f pla intiffs’ e q ua l pro te c tio n a nd priva c y rig hts, a nd T itle I X.
- T
he Unive rsity ha s indic a te d tha t it do e s no t inte nd to e nfo rc e H.B. 2.
- On Aug ust 1, 2016, fe de ra l distric t c o urt judg e T
ho ma s Sc hro e de r he ld a he a ring o n the pla intiffs’ mo tio n fo r a pre limina ry injunc tio n. Judg e Sc hro e de r a llo we d the U.S. De pt. o f Justic e to pa rtic ipa te in the he a ring .
SLIDE 15
15
ACL U L
AWSUIT(M.D. N.C)
On Aug ust 26, Judg e Sc hro e de r issue d a na rro w
injunc tio n unde r T itle I X, pre ve nting the Unive rsity-syste m a nd the Sta te fro m e nfo rc ing HB2 a g a inst the thre e individua l pla intiffs na me d in the suit while the suit is pe nding . Judg e Sc hro e de r de nie d pla intiffs’ re q ue st fo r injunc tive re lie f unde r the e q ua l pro te c tio n c la use a nd so ug ht a dditio na l b rie fing o n the due pro c e ss c la ims.
T
he pla intiffs ha ve file d a n a ppe a l in the F
- urth Circ uit,
se e king to ha ve the injunc tio n e xpa nde d sta te wide .
T
he tria l in the c a se ha s b e e n mo ve d fro m No ve mb e r to Ma y 2017 (to a wa it the o utc o me o f the Supre me Co urt pe titio n).
O T
HE R N.C. L AWSUIT S
I
n a dditio n to the ACL U suit, the Sta te ha s sue d the U.S. De pt.
- f Justic e a nd vic e ve rsa . T
he Sta te ’ s suit c a me in re spo nse to a le tte r fro m the Justic e De pt., se e king a ssura nc e s tha t the Sta te wo uld no t c o mply with o r e nfo rc e H.B. 2.
DOJ a lle g e s tha t the sta te la w vio la te s T
itle I X; T itle VI I
- f the
Civil Rig hts Ac t, whic h a lso pro hib its disc rimina tio n b a se d o n se x; a nd the Vio le nc e Ag a inst Wo me n Ac t, whic h e xplic itly pro te c ts “g e nde r ide ntity,” o r “a c tua l o r pe rc e ive d g e nde r- re la te d c ha ra c te ristic s.” S e e 42 USC § 13925(b )(13)(A); se e also 18 USC § 249 (c )(4).
T
he re is a pre limina ry injunc tio n mo tio n pe nding in the suit in whic h DOJ is the pla intiff.
SLIDE 16
16
T
E XAS V. USA (N.D. T E X.)
I
n re spo nse to the Ma y 2016 De a r Co lle a g ue le tte r, 11 sta te s file d suit a g a inst the Unite d Sta te s, in the No rthe rn Distric t o f T e xa s in la te Ma y.
T
he 11 o rig ina l pla intiffs we re Ala b a ma , Arizo na , Ge o rg ia , L
- uisia na , Ma ine , Okla ho ma , T
e nne sse e , T e xa s, We st Virg inia , Wisc o nsin, Uta h, a nd two lo c a l sc ho o l distric ts (in Arizo na a nd T e xa s).
T
he pla intiffs c la im tha t the g uida nc e issue d b y the de pa rtme nts is a le g isla tive rule , a nd the Administra tive Pro c e dure Ac t re q uire s no tic e a nd c o mme nt to a do pt a rule .
Pla intiffs a lso c la im tha t the a dministra tio n’ s inte rpre ta tio n o f
T itle I X c o nflic ts with the c le a r la ng ua g e o f the la w a nd the le g isla tive histo ry surro unding the la w a nd “ma nufa c ture s” a mb ig uity re g a rding the te rm “se x” in T itle I X.
T
E XAS V. USA (N.D. T E X.)
On Aug ust 22, the c o urt issue d a pre limina ry
injunc tio n b a rring the fe de ra l g o ve rnme nt fro m e nfo rc ing the OCR/ DOJ g uida nc e .
T
he c o urt rule d tha t this injunc tio n a pplie s na tio nwide , no t o nly to the e le ve n sta te s tha t we re pa rty to the la wsuit.
Ac c o rding to the c o urt, while the injunc tio n is in
pla c e , OCR/ DOJ ma y no t initia te , c o ntinue , o r c o nc lude a ny inve stig a tio n b a se d o n the inte rpre ta tio n tha t T itle I X’ s de finitio n o f “se x” disc rimina tio n inc lude s “g e nde r ide ntity” disc rimina tio n.
SLIDE 17
17
ST
AT E OF NE BRASKA V. USA, NO. 16- 03117
(D. NE
- B. F
IL E D JUL
. 8, 2016)
Simila r to T
e xa s c a se ; Ne b ra ska in 8th Circ uit
NE
+ 9 sta te s a lle g e E D/ DOJ Ma y 13 g uida nc e vio la te s Administra tive Pro c e dure Ac t in writing in “g e nde r ide ntity” whe re T itle VI I a nd T itle I X sa y “se x”
Ne b ra ska ’ s Atto rne y Ge ne ra l Do ug Pe te rso n: "T
he re c e nt a c tio n b y the se two fe de ra l a g e nc ie s to re q uire sho we rs, lo c ke r ro o ms, a nd b a thro o ms b e o pe n to b o th se xe s b a se d so le ly
- n
the stude nt’ s c ho ic e , c irc umve nts this e sta b lishe d la w b y ig no ring the a ppro pria te le g isla tive pro c e ss ne c e ssa ry to c ha ng e suc h a la w. I t a lso supe rse de s lo c a l sc ho o l distric ts’ a utho rity to a ddre ss stude nt issue s o n a n individua lize d, pro fe ssio na l a nd priva te b a sis."
O T
HE R CASE S
Pric e Wate rho use v. Ho pkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
(T itle VI I )
Kastl v. Maric o pa Cnty. Cmty. Co lle g e Dist., 325 F
e d.
- Appx. 492 (9th Cir. 2009) (T
itle VI I )
S mith v. City o f S ale m, 378 F
. 3d 566, 568 (6th Cir. 2004) (T itle VI I )
Jo hnsto n v. Unive rsity o f Pittsburg h, 97 F
. Supp. 3d 657 (W.D. Pa . 2015) (T itle I X)
S c hro e r v. Billing to n, 577 F
. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008) (T itle VI I )
SLIDE 18
18
T
- day’s Me e t
https:/ / to da ysme e t.c o m/ COSA2016
JOIN T
HE CONVE RSAT ION WHE
RE DOE S T HIS L E AVE US?
Advising Sc ho o l Bo a rds Whe n the L a w is E vo lving
SLIDE 19
19
“And to da y, we he a r fro m tha t ra re st
- f thing s in this
po la rize d po litic a l la ndsc a pe , a ne utra l vo ic e .” -- Ma ry L
- uise K
e lly, NPR “T he re are so me tric ky situatio ns fo r sc ho o l distric ts be c ause o f the unse ttle d so rt o f natio nal nature o f the law. T he fe de ral g uidanc e , o f c o urse , take s a c e rtain po sitio n, … [b]ut the n the re are c e rtain state s whe re … the law appe ars to be diame tric ally o ppo se d to what the fe de ral g uidanc e says. And so sc ho o ls in tho se situatio ns are re ally plac e d in an unte nable position.” – F ra nc isc o Ne g ró n, NSBA Ge ne ra l Co unse l
T ra nsg e nde r Stude nts in Sc ho o ls:
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers for Public School Boards and Staff
http:/ / www.nsb a .o rg / nsb a -fa q s-tra nsg e nde r-stude nts-sc ho o ls
SLIDE 20
20
CUL
T IVAT E A CUL T URE OF T RE AT ING AL L WIT H DIGNIT Y AND R E SPE CT
E
nc o ura g e inc lusive ne ss.
E
duc a te stude nts o n diffe ring b e lie fs a nd a llo w re spe c tful disc o urse .
E
ng a g e stude nts in e xe rc ise s to put the mse lve s in
- the rs’ sho e s (ra c e , re lig io n, g e nde r ide ntity),
re g a rdle ss o f whe re o ur c o urts o r le g isla ture s ultima te ly de c ide stude nts c a n g o to the b a thro o m.
T
RAIN YOUR ST AF F
E
xpo se yo ur sta ff to la wye rs, a dvo c a te s, re lig io us le a de rs, a nd o the rs who ha ve g ive n time a nd a tte ntio n to c a re ful tho ug h to the issue s invo lving tra nsg e nde r stude nts.
Allo w fa ir a nd b a la nc e d po sitio ns to b e sha re d.
SLIDE 21
21
SE
T UP A G OOGL E AL E RT
Wa tc h c urre nt c a se la w a nd ne ws a rtic le s o n
tra nsg e nde r stude nt issue s so yo u will b e a pprise d o f de ve lo pme nts, wha t is wo rking , wha t is fa iling , a nd wha t c o urts a nd a g e nc ie s a re de c iding .
Sta y a pprise d o f a ll de ve lo pme nts to minimize le g a l
risk.
ME
E T WIT H T HE PARE NT AND ST UDE NT
L
e a rn e xa c tly wha t re q ue sts a re b e ing ma de .
E
nsure stude nt sinc e re ly wa nts the a c c o mmo da tio n.
E
nsure stude nt is a wa re o f po te ntia l b a c kla sh fo r the a c c o mmo da tio n.
Se t a fo llo w-up pe rio d to re g ula rly e va lua te ho w the
a c c o mmo da tio n is wo rking a nd wha t twe a ks ne e d to b e ma de .
Pa rtie s sho uld wo rk to g e the r to a ddre ss wha t
info rma tio n will b e sha re d with o the r pa re nts & stude nts, a nd wha t pro te c tio ns a re ne e de d to minimize re ta lia tio n.
SLIDE 22
22
O T
HE R ACCOMMODAT ION R E QUE STE XAMPL E S
Be ing c a lle d b y a diffe re nt na me o r pro no uns in c la ss We a ring fe minine o r ma sc uline c lo the s, ha irstyle s, o r
ma ke up
Cha ng ing the stude nt’ s na me o n pe rma ne nt
e duc a tio na l re c o rds
Pa rtic ipa ting in spo rts o r e xtra c urric ula r a c tivitie s with
stude nts ma tc hing the ir g e nde r ide ntity
Ac c o mmo da ting me dic a l c o nc e rns (suc h a s g e nde r
dyspho ria , de pre ssio n, o r a nxie ty)
Ac c e ssing re stro o ms a nd lo c ke r ro o ms o f the ir g e nde r
ide ntity
Sta ying in o ve rnig ht ho using with stude nts ma tc hing the ir
g e nde r ide ntity during o ve rnig ht fie ld trips
CRE
AT E L OCALPOL ICIE S OR PROCE DURE S
Ha ve yo ur sc ho o l b o a rd a nd/ o r distric t
a dministra tio n re a dy to a ddre ss tra nsg e nde r stude nt issue s in the se a re a s (c re a tio n o f po lic ie s, o r o n c a se - b y-c a se b a sis):
Re c o rdke e ping Priva c y a nd c o nfide ntia lity Stude nt tra nsitio ns Re stro o ms a nd re la te d fa c ilitie s Dre ss c o de a nd a ppe a ra nc e Ge nde r-b a se d a c tivitie s
SLIDE 23
23
WE
IGH T HE L E GALR ISKS
I
f sc ho o l re fuse s to a c c o mmo da te , stude nt ma y ha ve sta nding to c ha lle ng e tha t de c isio n a nd a rg ue vio la tio n o f rig hts unde r T itle I X a nd/ o r 42 U.S.C Se c tio n 1983 (o r a pplic a b le sta te sta tute s).
On the o the r ha nd, a c c o mmo da tio n o f tra nsg e nde r
stude nts b y g iving a c c e ss to fa c ilitie s a nd pro g ra ms ma y re sult in c la ims o f o the r stude nts/ pa re nts b a se d
- n priva c y a nd/ o r re lig io us rig hts.
Q UE
ST IONS T O ASK ABOUTL E GALR ISKS:
Whic h o ptio n is mo st like ly to c a use ha rm to stude nts? Ho w sig nific a nt is ha rm? Wha t is the sc o pe a nd type o f ha rm? Will the pro po se d a c tio n minimize the ha rm suffic ie ntly to b e wo rth
the risk o f ta king the a c tio n?
Ho w ma ny stude nts a re invo lve d? Ho w vulne ra b le a re the stude nts a nd wha t pro te c tio ns a re a lre a dy
in pla c e ?
Do a ll stude nts invo lve d ha ve a suffic ie nt a lly fo r g uida nc e a nd
suppo rt?
Are the c o nc e rns b e ing ra ise d b y stude nts a nd/ o r pa re nts? Ha ve yo u put yo ur c a rrie r o n no tic e ? I
s yo ur la wye r o n spe e d dia l?
SLIDE 24
24
CONCL
USION
So me c o urts a nd OCR ha ve inte rpre te d T
itle I X (a s we ll a s T itle VI I in e mplo yme nt c o nte xt) to pro te c t g e nde r ide ntity a s pa rt o f “se x.”
OCR ha s issue d g uida nc e re q uiring sc ho o ls to
re c o g nize g e nde r ide ntity.
L
a wsuits to c ha lle ng e this sug g e stio n ha ve b e e n file d.
CONCL
USION, CONT
’D
Unle ss the re is sta tuto ry pro hib itio n (i.e . No rth
Ca ro lina ), lo c a l jurisdic tio ns c a n pro vide mo re pro te c tio ns to tra nsg e nde r stude nts tha n the la w re q uire s.
Ho we ve r, distric ts must b e se nsitive to the ne e ds a nd
fe a rs o f o the r stude nts a nd we ig h risks o f ta king a c tio n.
L
- o king a t stude nt ne e ds o n c a se -b y-c a se b a sis is