John Doe v. Regional School Unit 26
86 A.3d 600
| Me. | 2014Background
- Susan Doe, a transgender girl, is at issue in a complaint by her parents and the Maine Human Rights Commission against RSU 26 under the MHRA.
- Susan used the girls’ bathroom with school staff support after her gender identity became manifest in third/fourth grade, and a 504 plan was developed in early 2007.
- In fifth grade, after incidents involving a male student, the school restricted Susan to the single-stall unisex staff bathroom despite prior use of the girls’ bathroom.
- The December 2007–2007 transition planning for middle school maintained Susan’s use of the girls’ bathroom, but it was again denied, leading the Does to move.
- The MHRA amendments in 2005 prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation (including gender identity) in public accommodations and education; 20-A §6501 governs sanitary facilities but does not address facility usage.
- The Superior Court granted RSU 26 summary judgment on all counts; the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Does and the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHRA prohibits bathroom discrimination based on sexual orientation | Does: discrimination occurred due to transgender status. | RSU 26: 6501 preempts MHRA guidance on use of facilities. | Discrimination present; remand for summary judgment in Does/Commission favor. |
| Do 6501 sanitary facilities conflict with MHRA provisions on discrimination | MHRA should govern bathroom use; no preemption by 6501. | 6501 creates sex-separated facilities; may constrain policies. | Not irreconcilable; adopt a consistent reading giving effect to both statutes. |
| Whether RSU 26’s ban of Susan from the girls’ bathroom was discriminatory | Susan treated differently due to transgender status. | Was a response to complaints and not a blanket policy. | Yes, constituted discrimination under MHRA. |
| What is the proper standard of review | De novo review of the summary judgment record. | Standard applies to summary judgment under Rule 56. | De novo review applied; judgment vacated and remanded. |
| Scope of legislative intent regarding gender identity in public bathrooms | Legislation should protect transgender access to facilities. | Legislature did not address day-to-day facility usage specifics. | Legislature should be consulted to resolve statutory tension; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trott v. H.D. Goodall Hasp., 2013 ME 33 (Me. 2013) (standard for summary judgment de novo; record viewed favorably)
- State v. Niles, 585 A.2d 181 (Me. 1990) (ascertain real purpose of legislation; avoid absurd results)
- Woodcock v. Atlass, 898 A.2d 170 (Me. 2003) (interpret statutes to avoid illogical results)
- Central Maine Power Co. v. Devereux Marine, Inc., 2013 ME 37 (Me. 2013) (specific statute over general when inconsistent)
- Clark v. State Emps. Appeals Bd., 363 A.2d 735 (Me. 1976) (consider practical consequences in statutory construction)
- Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47 (Me. 2005) (awareness of state of the law when enacting acts)