323 F. Supp. 3d 1030
S.D. Ind.2018Background
- Plaintiff J.A.W., a 17-year-old unemancipated transgender male student at EVSC, seeks a preliminary injunction to use boys’ restrooms at school; his mother is supportive and is his guardian.
- Assigned female at birth, J.A.W. has socially transitioned, been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and has taken testosterone for about a year; his appearance and voice have become masculine.
- EVSC has no written policy; its practice is to base restroom access on the sex listed on a student’s birth certificate and to offer gender-neutral single-occupancy restrooms or nurse’s restroom as alternatives.
- EVSC denied J.A.W.’s requests to use boys’ restrooms; prior accommodations (nurse’s restroom, an unused girls’ locker room) were inconvenient and caused distress.
- J.A.W. sued, relying principally on Title IX and Equal Protection; he seeks an injunction permitting him to use boys’ restrooms during the pendency of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of access to restrooms consistent with gender identity violates Title IX | Denial constitutes sex discrimination; gender-neutral alternatives are insufficient (cites Whitaker) | Whitaker is distinguishable; schools may require more than a student’s assertion; EVSC relies on birth-certificate sex | Court: Likelihood of success on Title IX claim; Whitaker controls and EVSC’s birth-certificate rule is likely unacceptable |
| Whether restroom assignment based on birth-certificate sex violates Equal Protection | Policy is a sex-based classification subject to heightened scrutiny and lacks an exceedingly persuasive justification | Policy serves interests in safety, privacy, and preventing disruption | Court: Plaintiff likely to succeed; EVSC’s justifications are speculative and not sufficiently persuasive |
| Whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and lacks adequate remedy at law | Emotional distress, stigmatization, interference with social transition; damages inadequate to remedy prospective constitutional injury | Emotional distress could be compensated monetarily; plaintiff delayed in suing | Court: Irreparable harm shown (including presumption for constitutional violations); delay not fatal absent prejudice to EVSC |
| Balance of harms/public interest for preliminary injunction | Allowing J.A.W. to use boys’ restrooms causes little or no harm to EVSC or other students; protects plaintiff’s rights | Injunction would burden operational efficiency, parental authority, safety, and privacy across district | Court: Balance favors plaintiff; no evidence injunction would cause concrete harms; injunction granted for J.A.W. only |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker By Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (school’s denial of restroom access to transgender student likely violated Title IX and Equal Protection)
- Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 667 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2011) (irreparable harm standard in injunction analysis)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (constitutional-rights violations often warrant a presumption of irreparable harm)
- Campbell v. Miller, 373 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2004) (damages are typically adequate remedy for certain constitutional torts)