Case 3:17-cv-00739-TJC-JBT Document 192 Filed 07/26/18 Page 52 of 70 PageID 10730
F.3d 179 (suit filed by cisgender students objecting to the presence of transgender students in the school restrooms and locker rooms); Evancho, 237 F. Supp. 3d at 291–92 (noting that some parents had or intended to withdraw their children from school over transgender bathroom policy).
But the Court has addressed why privacy and safety concerns, though perhaps understandable, simply aren’t realized when transgender students use school bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. See Doc. 161 at Tr. 64–65, 106–07 (testimony of Broward County school officials); see also Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1052; Boyertown, 893 F.3d at 193. Moreover, while the Court finds that the gender-neutral bathrooms are not an adequate remedy for the breach of Adams’ rights, they remain an alternative for any cisgender student who is uncomfortable sharing a restroom with Adams. Thus, while the School Board must take into account the concerns of cisgender students and their parents, it may not do so at the expense of Adams’ right to equal protection under the law. “If adopting and implementing a school policy or practice based on [the] individual determinations or preferences of parents–no matter how sincerely held–runs counter to the legal obligations of the [School] District, then the District’s and the Board’s legal obligations must prevail.” Evancho, 237 F. Supp. 3d at 292.[1]
- ↑ The School Board also contends that its policy cannot be held to violate the Equal Protection Clause when they are merely following distinctions between the sexes permitted by Title IX and its implementing regulations. As further discussed
52
