Evancho v. Pine-Richland School District
237 F. Supp. 3d 267
W.D. Pa.2017Background
- Three transgender high‑school seniors at Pine‑Richland High School (two female‑identified, one male‑identified) had been using restrooms consistent with their gender identities for years with school and peer acceptance.
- The School Board passed Resolution 2 (5–4) directing students to use either single‑user restrooms or restrooms matching their “biological sex” (interpreted by counsel as external genitalia), reversing prior practice.
- Plaintiffs challenged enforcement of Resolution 2, seeking a preliminary injunction to restore pre‑resolution restroom access, claiming violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
- The record showed no reports of actual privacy invasions or misconduct tied to Plaintiffs’ prior restroom use; the school has multiple single‑user restrooms and bathroom stalls/partitions.
- The Board cited privacy concerns and constituent pressure as justifications; Plaintiffs submitted unopposed expert and first‑hand declarations of harm (stigmatization, anxiety) from being barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Resolution 2’s restroom restriction violates Equal Protection | Resolution 2 discriminates based on transgender status/gender nonconformity (sex) and lacks exceedingly persuasive justification | Resolution 2 is rationally related to protecting student privacy and community preferences; rational‑basis review applies | Court applies intermediate scrutiny to transgender classification and grants preliminary injunction on Equal Protection grounds (status quo restored for these students) |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for transgender classifications | Transgender status is analogous to sex; intermediate scrutiny should apply | No controlling precedent requires heightened scrutiny; rational basis should govern | Court concludes intermediate scrutiny applies based on history of discrimination, immutability, and political powerlessness of transgender class |
| Whether Plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm and balance of equities for preliminary relief | Exclusion stigmatizes Plaintiffs, causes immediate mental‑health and educational harms that are irreparable | Enforcement protects privacy and reflects community views; harms to district are minimal | Plaintiffs shown likely irreparable harm; balance of equities and public interest favor injunction |
| Whether Title IX bars Resolution 2’s restroom policy | Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination covers gender identity/transgender status; departmental guidance supports Plaintiffs | Title IX’s implementing regulation allows sex‑segregated facilities if equal; agency guidance on transgender access is unsettled; Supreme Court review in G.G. complicates predictability | Court finds Plaintiffs may show Title IX covers transgender status but declines to grant preliminary relief on Title IX claim due to regulatory/agency‑guidance uncertainty and pending Supreme Court consideration in G.G. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (classification that targets a group must bear a rational relation to a legitimate end)
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (intermediate scrutiny for sex‑based classifications; requires exceedingly persuasive justification)
- Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) (discrimination against transgender person constitutes sex‑based discrimination/gender nonconformity)
- Doe v. Luzerne Cty., 660 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2011) (context‑specific analysis of privacy interests; no bright‑line rule at restroom door)
- G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016) (addressed Title IX, agency guidance, and deference; grant of certiorari/stay created legal uncertainty)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction)
- Dodds v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 845 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2016) (discusses Title IX and agency guidance regarding transgender students)