Case 3:17-cv-00739-TJC-JBT Document 192 Filed 07/26/18 Page 43 of 70 PageID 10721
actual risk of invasion of a student’s personal privacy).[1]
- 2. Safety
The School Board also cites student safety as a basis to uphold its bathroom policy, expressing concern for transgender students who may be bullied or harassed in the bathroom matching their gender identity and for cisgender students who may not feel safe if a person with genitalia of the opposite sex is in the restroom with them. There was no evidence that Adams encountered any safety concerns during the six weeks he used the boys’ restroom at Nease or when he does so in other public places. Likewise, there was no evidence that Adams presents any safety risk to other students or that transgender students are more likely than anyone else to assault or molest another student in the bathroom. Any incidents of misconduct are subject to the school’s code of conduct and, if necessary, Florida criminal law.
None of the school officials who testified had ever heard of an incident where student safety was compromised by the presence of a transgender student in the restroom that matched his or her gender identity. Again, any student with safety concerns–including a transgender student–can use a gender-neutral single-stall bathroom. Consistent with a number of other courts that have considered the issue,
- ↑ The School Board relies on numerous cases for the general proposition that students have an interest in protecting their bodily privacy (see Doc. 173-1 at 37–40). The Court does not disagree, but the evidence at trial established that student privacy will not be infringed by permitting Adams to use the boys’ restrooms.
43
