Case 3:17-cv-00739-TJC-JBT Document 192 Filed 07/26/18 Page 20 of 70 PageID 10698
Tr. 248. The School Board Attorney explained that the bathroom policy comports with the Board’s overall responsibility for student welfare, which, in the case of bathrooms, principally involves concerns for privacy and safety.[1] Doc. 162 at Tr. 110–11.
With regard to privacy, the School Board seeks to preserve the privacy of individuals using the restroom facilities, but admits that the bathroom stall doors provide privacy for anyone inside a stall. Id. at Tr. 114. The retired Director of Student Services who led the LGBTQ task force explained the privacy concerns:
[W]hen a girl goes into a girls’ restroom, she feels that she has the privacy to change clothes in there, to go to the bathroom, to refresh her makeup. They talk to other girls. It’s kind of like a guy on the golf course; the women talk in the restrooms, you know. And to have someone else in there that may or may not make them feel uncomfortable, I think that’s an issue we have to look at. It’s not just for the transgender child, but it’s for the other.
Doc. 161 at Tr. 213. The School District’s Deputy Superintendent for Operations raised similar points, saying a student may want privacy to undress or clean up a stain on her clothing. Id. at Tr. 248. The School Board Attorney also explained that allowing a transgender student to use a restroom that conformed to his or her gender identity could create opportunities for students “with untoward intentions to do things they ought not to do,” although the School Board has never received any complaints
- ↑ The School Board did not argue that cost was a factor in arriving at a bathroom policy. See Doc. 161 at Tr. 67–68.
Cir. 2005) (explaining the constitutional and prudential concerns that must be satisfied to invoke the federal court’s limited jurisdiction).
20
