Jump to content

Talk:G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 7 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Koolaid1018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of future work on article from Gender identity under Title IX

[edit]

G. G. v. Gloucester County School Board

[edit]
See also: Bathroom bill
Gavin Grimm, wearing a trans pride flag cape and a T-shirt reading "No Body Is Illegal", speaks on stage at the 2018 Trans March San Francisco.

Starting in 2010, OCR brought a number of successful enforcement actions under Title IX on behalf of students who were subject to harassment or discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, gender expression, or failure to conform to gender stereotypes.[1] Eight of the cases were settled in favor of the students.[1] Several private lawsuits were brought as well on similar grounds.[1][2] In 2016, the Fourth Circuit became the first[3] Court of Appeals to rule on the scope of Title IX as applied to transgender students, in the case of Virginia high school student Gavin Grimm (G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board).[4]

Grimm came out as a transgender boy while a student at Gloucester High School in Virginia.[5][6][7] After he began using male facilities, the Gloucester County School Board passed a policy resolution requiring that access to changing rooms and bathrooms "shall be limited to the corresponding biological genders, and students with gender identity issues shall be provided an alternative appropriate private facility".[6] At the school board meeting, speakers addressing the board called Grimm a "freak" and compared him to a dog.[8] When he refused to use the girls' bathroom, Grimm was offered the use of some broom closets that had been retrofitted into unisex bathrooms.[7] Grimm refused to use those as well, opting to use a bathroom in the school nurse's office.[7]

Grimm obtained legal representation from the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the school under Title IX and referred the case to the DOJ.[9] The federal government agreed to intervene in the case on Grimm's behalf, writing to the court that Title IX "prohibits discrimination based on sex, including gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes".[9][10]

Judge Robert G. Doumar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Grimm's Title IX claim and denied his request for an injunction.[11][12] In his ruling, Judge Doumar held that Title IX's operative provision should be read narrowly to cover discrimination on the basis of genetic "sex" only, and not gender identity or expression.[8][11][12] During the proceedings in the District Court, Judge Doumar made a number of idiosyncratic statements from the bench, saying that being transgender is a "mental disorder",[11] delivering off-topic criticism of the federal government on the issues of marijuana enforcement[8] and sanctuary cities,[11] and explaining that Grimm is a female who "wants to be male".[8] In reviewing the case, the Court of Appeals criticized Judge Doumar's conduct in the courtroom, writing that his "extraneous remarks [and] suppositions ... marred the hearing".[12]

Grimm appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 19, 2016, a three-judge panel of that court overturned Judge Doumar's decision with respect to Title IX.[4] In their ruling, two of the three panel members agreed with the government's position that the regulation governing sex-segregated facilities is ambiguous, and held that its interpretation of this regulation is entitled to "deference and is to be accorded controlling weight" under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Auer v. Robbins.[4][12][13] Accordingly, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the District Court for further proceedings granting deference to DOE's interpretation of the Title IX regulation.[4] The school board moved for rehearing en banc, but the Fourth Circuit declined to rehear the case.[14] On June 23, Judge Doumar issued a preliminary injunction in Grimm's favor.[15]

The Supreme Court stayed the Circuit Court's decision in August 2016, and in October 2016, it agreed to take up the case.[16] The Court reversed its decision to hear the case on March 6, 2017, and vacated the judgment in Grimm's favor citing the Trump administration's withdrawal of the DOE interpretation of the Title IX regulation to which the Fourth Circuit had granted deference.[17]

Before being vacated by the Supreme Court, the ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had controlling status in federal courts located in the states served by the Fourth Circuit – Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina – and was expected to influence the litigation over North Carolina's anti-LGBT law, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act.[18] The Fourth Circuit ruling would have served as controlling precedent in the North Carolina litigation with respect to Title IX only – and not with respect to Title VII claims (discrimination in the employment context).[19] The two statutes are closely linked, however: according to Duke University School of Law professor Katharine T. Bartlett, "it would be inconceivable [that courts] would decide that transgender bias is sex discrimination under Title IX, but not under Title VII."[19]

On May 22, 2018 U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia denied the Gloucester County School Board's motion to dismiss the case, and ruled that Grimm had a valid claim of discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as well as the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.[20][21]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference resources was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ The LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, Transgender Student Loses Fight over Expulsion from University of Pittsburgh over Restroom Issues, May 2015.
  3. ^ Gov. McCrory files brief to reverse Gloucester transgender restroom policy case, WTKR, May 10, 2016
  4. ^ a b c d Fausset, Richard (April 19, 2016). "Appeals Court Favors Transgender Student in Virginia Restroom Case". New York Times. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  5. ^ G. G. v. Gloucester County School Board, American Civil Liberties Union
  6. ^ a b The Editorial Board, For Transgender Americans, Legal Battles Over Restrooms, The New York Times, July 27, 2015
  7. ^ a b c John Riley, Gavin's Story: Gavin Grimm is the new face of the transgender movement, Metro Weekly, May 12, 2016
  8. ^ a b c d Mark Joseph Stern, Judge Bemoans Sanctuary Cities, Marijuana Legalization in Hearing on Trans Bathroom Access, Slate, July 28, 2015
  9. ^ a b Dominic Holden, Justice Dept. Backs Transgender Boy In Lawsuit Against School District, BuzzFeed, June 30, 2015
  10. ^ G. G. v. Gloucester County School Board (E.D. Va.), Statement of Interest of the United States, June 29, 2015
  11. ^ a b c d Dominic Holden, Judge Throws Out Key Argument In Transgender Student Restroom Case, BuzzFeed, July 27, 2015
  12. ^ a b c d G. G. v. Gloucester County School Board (4th Cir.), Opinion of the Court, April 19, 2016
  13. ^ Christian Farias, Appeals Court Sides With Trans Student Denied Access To High School Boys Bathroom, Huffington Post, April 19, 2016
  14. ^ U.S. Court Denies Motion to Reconsider Transgender Bathroom Ruling, Reuters, May 31, 2016
  15. ^ Dominic Holden, Federal Court Orders School Board To Let Transgender Boy Use Restroom, BuzzFeed, June 24, 2016
  16. ^ Barnes, Robert; Balingit, Moriah (October 28, 2016). "Supreme Court takes up school bathroom rules for transgender students". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
  17. ^ Liptak, Adam (March 6, 2017). "Supreme Court Won't Hear Major Case on Transgender Rights". New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
  18. ^ Ilona Turner, Why the Gavin Grimm Decision Is Game-Changing for the Fight Against Anti-Trans Legislation, Huffington Post, April 20, 2016.
  19. ^ a b Jay-Anne Casuga, North Carolina Bathroom Battle May Turn on Deference to Agency, Daily Labor Report, Bloomberg BNA, May 24, 2016
  20. ^ Hurley, Lawrence. "U.S. court backs transgender student at center of bathroom dispute".
  21. ^ Freeman, Vernon. "Federal court rules in favor of transgender student Gavin Grimm".

Renaming the article

[edit]

Should we now rename the article according to the final version of the case, replacing “G.G.” With “Grimm”? Antinoos69 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the title because that's the name of the case often used in court documents, as Grimm didn't become an adult until 2017. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. The bulk of the case was handled while Grimm was a minor, so that's how it will generally be remembered. Masem (t) 15:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G.G._v._Gloucester_County_School_Board&oldid=1207336195"