A federal appeals court has ruled that a Florida school district鈥檚 policy barring a transgender male student from the boys鈥� restroom violated the student鈥檚 rights under both the equal-protection clause and Title IX.
The panel said that student Drew Adams鈥檚 Title IX claim was bolstered by the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 recent decision in , that transgender workers are protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
鈥�Bostock has great import for Mr. Adams鈥檚 Title IX claim,鈥� says the majority opinion for the 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta. 鈥�Bostock confirmed that workplace discrimination against transgender people is contrary to law. Neither should this discrimination be tolerated in schools. The school board鈥檚 bathroom policy, as applied to Mr. Adams, singled him out for different treatment because of his transgender status.鈥�
The Aug. 7 decision in involves Adams, who was assigned as a female at birth but suffered gender dysphoria and had begun presenting and living as a boy by the time he entered Nease High School in Ponte Vedra, Fla., in 2015.
Adams used the boys鈥� restroom for his first nine weeks of 9th grade, court papers say, but after a complaint administrators informed him he could use only the girls鈥� restroom or a gender-neutral, single-stall restroom in the school office. The St. Johns district had adopted a 鈥渂est practices鈥� policy for LGBTQ students that included using transgender students鈥� preferred pronouns. But it declined to allow transgender students to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.
Adams and his mother sued the district under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars discrimination 鈥渂ased on sex鈥� in federally funded schools, as well as under the 14th Amendment鈥檚 equal-protection clause.
A federal district court ruled in favor of Adams on both his Title IX and equal-protection clause claims, and the school board appealed to the 11th Circuit.
While the case was pending, the Supreme Court decided in Bostock that discrimination against gay, lesbian, or transgender employees was a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Writing in dissent in the 6-3 decision, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. predicted (with dismay, from his viewpoint) that the Title VII decision would lead to rulings under Title IX supporting transgender students seeking to use school facilities that match their gender identity.
The 11th Circuit court is the first court to issue such a ruling citing Bostock, though some other federal appeals courts and lower federal courts have been siding with transgender students for years based on the theory that transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination barred by Title IX.
The St. Johns County district argued before the 11th Circuit that Title IX鈥檚 bar on sex discrimination is different from Title VII鈥檚 because 鈥渟chools are a wildly different environment than the workplace鈥� and education 鈥渋s the province of local governmental officials.鈥�
鈥淲e are not persuaded,鈥� Chief Judge Beverly B. Martin wrote for the majority. 鈥淐ongress saw fit to outlaw sex discrimination in federally funded schools, just as it did in covered workplaces. ... With Bostock鈥榮 guidance, we conclude that Title IX, like Title VII, prohibits discrimination against a person because he is transgender, because this constitutes discrimination based on sex.鈥�
In also ruling for Adams鈥檚 equal-protection claim, the majority said 鈥淭he school board鈥檚 bathroom policy singles out transgender students for differential treatment because they are transgender. ... The policy places a special burden on transgender students because their gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth.鈥�
In a sharp dissent, Judge William H. Pryor Jr. said the majority鈥檚 decision cast legal doubt on sex-segregated bathrooms in schools.
The majority 鈥渞eaches the remarkable conclusion that schoolchildren have no sex-specific privacy interests when using the bathroom,鈥� Pryor said, and 鈥渢he logic of this decision would require all schoolchildren to use sex-neutral bathrooms.鈥�
鈥淭here is nothing unlawful, under either the Constitution or federal law, about a policy that separates bathrooms for schoolchildren on the basis of sex,鈥� Pryor said.
The majority answered Pryor in a footnote, saying the dissent鈥檚 鈥渃entral flaw is that it does not meaningfully reckon with what it means for Mr. Adams to be a transgender boy. ... The dissent fails to acknowledge Mr. Adams鈥檚 gender transition, his gender dysphoria and clinical treatment, or the unique significance of his restroom use to his wellbeing.鈥�
Adams, now a 19-year-old college student, praised the decision in a statement released by Lambda Legal, a New York City-based civil rights group that represented him.
鈥淚 am very happy to see justice prevail, after spending almost my entire high school career fighting for equal treatment,鈥� Adams said. 鈥淗igh school is hard enough without having your school separate you from your peers and mark you as inferior. I hope this decision helps save other transgender students from having to go through that painful and humiliating experience.鈥�
There was no immediate reaction from the St. Johns County district.