Case 3:17-cv-00739-TJC-JBT Document 192 Filed 07/26/18 Page 53 of 70 PageID 10731
The School Board has not shown that ‘its gender classification is substantially related to a sufficiently important government interest,’” Glenn, 663 F.3d at 1316 (quotation omitted), let alone that the justification for its policy is “exceedingly persuasive.” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 556. Nor has it shown a “foundation for the conclusion that allowing [Adams to use the boys’ restroom] will cause the harmful outcomes they describe.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2607. Adams has therefore proven that the School Board has violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause through its enforcement of the school bathroom policy.
- B. Title IX
Adams also claims that the School Board bathroom policy violates his rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Under Title IX, no person “shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance … .” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The statute’s implementing regulations provide that a covered institution cannot provide different aid, benefits, or services; cannot deny aid, benefits, or services; and cannot subject any person to separate or different rules, sanctions, or treatment, “on the basis of sex.” See 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(b)(2)–(4); Whitaker, 858 F. 3d at 1046–47. However, a covered
below, the Court finds this argument unavailing.
53
