G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board
132 F. Supp. 3d 736
E.D. Va.2015Background
- G.G., a student designated female at birth, informed school officials in 2014 that he identifies as male, changed his name, received a Gender Dysphoria diagnosis, and began hormone treatment.
- Gloucester County School Board adopted a December 9, 2014 Resolution requiring use of restrooms/locker rooms corresponding to "biological gender," and offering single-stall unisex restrooms as alternatives.
- After the Resolution, G.G. was barred from using the boys’ restrooms; he claims the policy stigmatizes him and impedes his medically recommended transition.
- G.G. sued under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX and moved for a preliminary injunction to allow use of the boys’ restroom pending trial.
- The Government filed a Statement of Interest arguing Title IX requires treating transgender students consistent with gender identity; the School Board relied on Department of Education regulations allowing sex-segregated facilities.
- The court granted the School Board’s motion to dismiss the Title IX claim and denied the preliminary injunction (without resolving the Equal Protection claim on the merits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX prohibits denying restroom access based on transgender status | G.G.: sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity; Price Waterhouse supports inclusion | School Board: Title IX permits sex-segregated facilities and does not cover gender-identity-based claims | Dismissed: Title IX claim fails because 34 C.F.R. §106.33 permits separate facilities on basis of sex and plaintiff did not allege facilities were not comparable |
| Whether Department of Education guidance alters the regulatory meaning of "sex" in §106.33 | G.G./Govt: OCR letter and guidance interpret Title IX to require treating transgender students consistent with gender identity | School Board: Guidance is nonbinding and cannot override the clear regulation; changes require notice-and-comment rulemaking | Rejected deference: Court refused to give controlling weight to OCR letter/guidance because §106.33 is unambiguous and agency opinion would effectively create a new regulation |
| Whether a preliminary injunction should issue to allow G.G. to use boys’ restroom pending trial | G.G.: irreparable harm from stigma and medical needs outweigh speculative privacy harms to others; unisex restrooms are inadequate | School Board: must protect privacy and safety of all students; alternatives (female restroom, unisex stalls, nurse’s restroom) are available | Denied: G.G. failed to show balance of hardships favors him and offered insufficient admissible evidence of irreparable harm |
| Whether student privacy interests outweigh temporary hardship to plaintiff during litigation | G.G.: privacy concerns are speculative and mitigated by restroom modifications; classmates accepted him during prior use | School Board: community complaints and constitutional interest in bodily privacy of students justify policy | Court sided with School Board: substantial privacy interests recognized; plaintiff’s evidence was uncorroborated or inadmissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards; court accepts well-pleaded allegations on a motion to dismiss)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (sex stereotyping is actionable sex discrimination)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretations)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) (opinion letters and guidance do not warrant Chevron-style deference)
- Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that discrimination against transgender persons may constitute sex stereotyping)
- Johnston v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 97 F. Supp. 3d 657 (W.D. Pa. 2015) (district court holding that Title IX did not necessarily encompass discrimination against transgender individuals)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction burden on movant)
- Faulkner v. Jones, 10 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 1993) (recognizing different restroom/locker-room design and privacy interests by sex)