Joel Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, 897 F.3d 518

Boyertown Area School District (BASH) changed its policy (2016) to permit transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity; access was granted case-by-case after counselor review.
BASH provided multi-user bathrooms with stalls, 4–8 single-user restrooms (four always available), renovated locker rooms with single-user showers, team rooms, and other private options; students could use single-user facilities if uncomfortable.
Four (pseudonymous) cisgender students sued for a preliminary injunction under § 1983 (privacy right), Title IX, and Pennsylvania tort law (intrusion upon seclusion), seeking to bar the policy.
The District Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits and not shown to face irreparable harm; the court found the policy narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
The Third Circuit affirmed, agreeing that protecting transgender students from discrimination is a compelling state interest and that BASH’s policy—combined with privacy safeguards—did not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional privacy rights, Title IX, or Pennsylvania tort law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutional right to bodily privacy (partially clothed in sex-segregated spaces)	Policy permits viewing by opposite sex; violates privacy right	Policy serves compelling interest (preventing discrimination) and is narrowly tailored; privacy safeguards available	Court: plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; policy survives strict scrutiny analysis; no constitutional violation
Whether presence of transgender students constitutes Title IX sex discrimination	Presence/“intermingling” creates hostile environment or sex-based discrimination	Policy is sex‑neutral (applies to all) and does not subject cisgender students to disparate treatment; barring trans students could itself violate Title IX	Court: plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; no disparate-treatment claim; no hostile‑environment demonstrated
Pennsylvania tort: intrusion upon seclusion	Mere presence of transgender students in bathrooms/locker rooms is highly offensive and intrusive	Multi-user spaces with expectation of seeing others; available private facilities; presence alone not highly offensive	Court: plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; intrusion claim fails
Irreparable harm / preliminary injunction standard	Emotional distress, avoiding bathrooms, alleged loss of privacy require immediate relief	Adequate single‑user/private facilities mitigate harm; plaintiffs can avoid irreparable injury during litigation	Court: plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; injunction denial affirmed

Doe v. Luzerne Cty., 660 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognizes a privacy interest in one’s unclothed or partially clothed body and frames context-specific privacy analysis)
Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (held that prohibiting transgender students from using facilities consistent with their gender identity violates Title IX)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (Title VII requires proof that conduct constituted discrimination because of sex; guides analogous Title IX analysis)
Doe v. SEPTA, 72 F.3d 1133 (3d Cir. 1995) (framework that § 1983 privacy claims must implicate fundamental privacy interests)
DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008) (defines Title IX hostile-environment standard for students)
Castleberry v. STI Grp., 863 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2017) (clarifies severe-or-pervasive standard for harassment claims)