Trial News

A federal judge has ruled that the Virginia public high school Gavin Grimm attended violated his constitutional and civil rights when, despite his male gender identity, it prohibited him from using the school’s men’s restrooms because he was identified as female at birth. The decision marks the latest milestone in a legal battle that began in 2015 and made Grimm a public face of the transgender rights movement in the United States. (Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 2019 WL 3774118 (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2019)).

In 2014, as Trial News previously reported, Grimm asked to use the men’s restrooms at his high school in Gloucester County, Va., as part of his treatment for gender dysphoria. The school granted permission, and Grimm used those bathrooms for nearly two months without incident. But then, after adults in the community and at least one student complained, the school implemented a new policy that restroom use “shall be limited to the corresponding biological genders.” The school built Grimm a single-user restroom, located far from his classes. No other students used that restroom, which Grimm testified made him feel “stigmatized and isolated.”

In 2015, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles issued Grimm a state ID card identifying him as male. In 2016, the Virginia Department of Health issued him a new birth certificate, which also identified him as male. The school, however, refused to update Grimm’s school records, which still incorrectly list him as “female.”

In 2015, Grimm sued the school board in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the school’s restroom policy violated Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. He also moved for an injunction to allow him to use the school’s men’s restrooms. The district court dismissed his Title IX claim and denied the injunction. The Fourth Circuit reversed, deferring to guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education under President Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari but then vacated and remanded without hearing the case after the Trump administration withdrew the guidance the Fourth Circuit relied on to make its decision. During this time, Grimm was not permitted to use men’s restrooms at school.

After graduating high school in 2017, Grimm filed an amended complaint seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the school’s policy violated his rights under Title IX and the equal protection clause. In a reversal from its earlier decision, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in 2018. It held that a “claim of discrimination on the basis of transgender status constitutes a viable claim of sex discrimination” under Title IX. In February 2019, Grimm filed a second amended complaint adding a claim that the school’s continued refusal to update his sex in his records also violated Title IX and the equal protection clause.

Both parties moved for summary judgment: The district court granted Grimm’s summary judgment motion on his Title IX and equal protection claims and denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion. First turning to Grimm’s Title IX claim, the court found he had established that he was excluded from an education program because of his sex, he was harmed by this discrimination, and the school was receiving federal funding at the time of his exclusion. The court wrote that the school’s bathroom policy, which operated on the basis of gender stereotypes, “singled out [transgender students], subjected [them] to discriminatory treatment, and excluded [them] from spaces where similarly situated students are permitted to go.” The court cited evidence that Grimm felt stigmatized by the policy, developed urinary tract infections from avoiding the single-user bathroom, and had to be hospitalized for suicidal thoughts resulting from this stress.

The court then reviewed Grimm’s equal protection claim using an intermediate scrutiny standard, which required the defendant to provide an “exceedingly persuasive” justification for its bathroom policy. The school failed to meet this burden, unable to convince the court that its policy was substantially related to its interest in protecting other students’ privacy. The court noted that Grimm used the men’s restroom at school for nearly two months without complaint, and the defendant failed to explain why any privacy concerns could not be addressed with expanded stalls or urinal dividers.

Finally, the court granted Grimm’s motion for a permanent injunction requiring the defendant to update school records to reflect his male identity. The court found that Grimm had met the four elements necessary for this relief: The school’s refusal to accept his gender identity had caused him ongoing injury; this injury could not be rectified through monetary damages; the hardship to Grimm of presenting official records that “negate his male identity” was significantly greater than any hardship the board would face in updating records; and an injunction would not undermine the public interest—in fact, an injunction would “serve the public’s interest in upholding constitutional rights.”

The school board plans to appeal, and Richmond, Va., ACLU attorney Eden Heilman, who represents Grimm, said that her client is prepared to litigate as long as necessary. “The district court’s decision vindicates what Gavin has been arguing for more than four years. Being singled out and excluded from using the same restrooms that other boys and girls use has nothing to do with privacy and only serves to harm and embarrass transgender students. This ruling is very significant for trans students, and we are committed to continue this fight to ensure that no student has to experience the stigma and humiliation that Gavin was forced to endure.”