G.G. Ex Rel. Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board
654 F. App'x 606
4th Cir.2016Background
- Student G.G., a transgender male, challenged Gloucester County School Board policies governing access to sex-separated school facilities; a district court issued a preliminary injunction in G.G.’s favor.
- The School Board sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal and possible certiorari.
- A panel of the Fourth Circuit denied the stay; Judge Floyd entered the order.
- Senior Judge Davis concurred in denying the stay, relying on Supreme Court precedent (Price Waterhouse) recognizing sex-stereotyping claims and circuit authority treating anti‑transgender actions as sex discrimination.
- Judge Niemeyer dissented, arguing the panel’s earlier decision was unprecedented, conflicted with Title IX’s text permitting sex‑separate facilities, questioned Auer deference to an Education Department interpretation, raised student privacy and disruption concerns, and emphasized availability of three unisex bathrooms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant a stay pending appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction | G.G.: injunction protects rights under Title IX/Title VII principles against sex‑stereotyping and discrimination of transgender individuals | School Board: injunction should be stayed because the panel’s earlier ruling is unprecedented, conflicts with Title IX text, and causes privacy/disruption | Stay denied by the court; concurrence agreed, dissent would grant stay |
| Whether discrimination against transgender individuals constitutes discrimination "because of sex" | G.G.: Price Waterhouse and subsequent cases support that sex‑stereotyping claims encompass transgender discrimination | School Board: contends Title IX’s text authorizes sex‑separate facilities and the new interpretation lacks legal foundation | Concurrence cites Price Waterhouse and circuit precedents recognizing transgender discrimination as sex discrimination; majority denial of stay implies no disturbance to injunction |
| Whether the district court satisfied injunction‑entry standards (Winter/Long) | G.G.: district court’s injunction appropriate to prevent harm while appeal proceeds | School Board: district court failed to apply required Winter preliminary‑injunction analysis; Long balancing favors a stay | Dissent faults district court procedure and would grant stay; majority denied stay (concluding no reason to disturb district court’s discretion) |
| Whether providing unisex bathrooms obviates need for injunction | G.G.: separate unisex options do not negate harms from being excluded from sex‑segregated facilities | School Board: availability of three unisex bathrooms accommodates privacy concerns and reduces injury from a stay | Dissent emphasizes unisex bathrooms as mitigating; concurrence notes they are available to any student but still upholds denial of stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (plurality and concurrences recognizing sex‑stereotyping as prohibited sex discrimination)
- Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978) (sex‑stereotyping discussed in discrimination context)
- Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) (terminating employee for being transgender violates Equal Protection as sex discrimination)
- Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (transgender employee stated Title VII claim under Price Waterhouse reasoning)
- Rosa v. Park W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000) (transgender individual could state sex discrimination claim)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (transgender individual could state claim under gender‑motivated violence statute)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to administrative interpretation of its own regulations)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction)
- Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1970) (framework for stay/temporary relief pending appeal)