Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Transgender Lawsuit Continues After Judges’ Partial Ruling

A challenge of Tennessee’s law dealing with the use of public school restrooms and locker rooms by transgender students remains alive after a federal judge declined to dismiss all claims against the state education department and Williamson County Schools.

U.S. District Court Judge William Campbell denied the state’s request in to dismiss the child’s claim of a violation of rights under the Equal Protection Clause. 

The judge, however, granted a request to dismiss the child’s claim that her Title IX rights were violated. The ruling notes that because the federal law allows schools to maintain separate restrooms for “the different sexes,” requiring the child to use the restroom based on her biological sex doesn’t violate Title IX.

The judge also dismissed the child’s request to correct all records to reflect her female gender.

Tennessee lawmakers have taken steps in recent years to prevent transgender athletes from playing sports based on their sexual identity. The Legislature enacted restrictions in 2023 on transgender medical treatment and this year adopted a bill preventing adults other than parents and guardians from taking children outside the state for transgender care.

Senate passes two bills aimed at transgender athletes

Tennessee Lookout

The case against the Tennessee Department of Education and Williamson County Schools involves a 9-year-old transgender child who was male at birth but identifies as female, according to court filings. The child uses “she/her” pronouns and lives socially as a girl by wearing her hair long and dressing in a manner usually associated with girls. 

The complaint was brought by a friend and the child’s parents when the child was 8, claiming the Williamson County elementary school she attends requires her to use a single-occupancy restroom, not the multi-use girls’ restroom.

The child claims the school’s “insistence” that she use a separate restroom “isolates her and distinguishes her from her classmates and exacerbates the stress and anxiety she experiences while trying to fit in and avoid being stigmatized on the basis of her sex and gender identity.” The child also claims the restroom designated for her has problems with distance from her class, safety and cleanliness.

The Tennessee Legislature passed the Tennessee Accommodations for All Children Act in May 2021, requiring public schools to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to students, teachers and employees who want “greater privacy when using a multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility designated for [their] sex and located within a public school building.” 

“Reasonable accommodations” include single-occupancy restrooms or changing facilities or use of an employee restroom or changing facility.

The “reasonable accommodations” don’t include restrooms or changing areas designated for use by members of the opposite sex while the opposite sex is present or could be present. They also don’t require remodeling or structurally changing a school facility, or limiting access to a restroom or changing room designated for use by members of the opposite sex if that creates a violation or state or local building codes.

The new state law defines sex as “a person’s immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth.” It also provides students, parents, guardians, teachers and employees the right to sue public school systems for “psychological, emotional, and physical harm,” including monetary damages, legal fees and costs if they “encounter a member of the opposite sex in a multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility located in a public school building … [and] the public school intentionally allowed a member of the opposite sex [defined as sex at birth] to enter the multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility while other persons were present.”

Campbell denied the child’s request for an injunction against the school district to stop it from enforcing the state law.

Yet the judge opted not to dismiss the child’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits a state from “denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and prevents government discrimination that “either burdens a fundamental right, targets a suspect class or intentionally treats one differently than others similarly situated without any rational basis for the difference.”

The judge’s ruling points out that classifications by the government based on sex are recognized as “a quasi-suspect classification subject to intermediate scrutiny.”

DH v. Williamson Board of Education

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

‘Anti-Trans’ Bathroom Bill Moved To Summer Study

Proposed legislation dubbed the “anti-trans bathroom bill” has been deferred to summer study following a discussion in a Senate panel in the General Assembly.

Lawmakers opted to conduct further research and “tighten up” on SB 2781 before further voting during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting today.

The bill, introduced by Senator Janice Bowling (R-Tullahoma), “makes it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly enter into and remain in a public restroom that does not correspond with the person’s biological sex.” 

The amended summary of the bill reads: “Expands the offense of observation without consent to include a person who knowingly enters into and remains in a public restroom that does not correspond with the person’s biological sex.”

The bill would also expand the offense to include “a person that adopts rules or enforces a policy or other work-related guidance for employees or contractors to promote or assist in the commission of observation without consent involving a person who knowingly enters into and remains in a public restroom that does not correspond with the person’s biological sex, in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to, a restroom, locker room, dressing room, or shower, designated for multi-person, single-sex use.”

During the meeting, Bowling spoke about this amendment that makes the bill which expands present laws prohibiting citizens from “knowingly spy[ing on] or view[ing]” others “in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy,” if the viewing “would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if the person knew the person was being viewed,” and “was for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.”

Bowling said, “There’s been a lot of raging debate over the last few years around locker rooms and bathroom access for transgender individuals. This bill prohibits public institutions, which have bathrooms open to the public, from adopting rules which force employees to violate Peeping Tom laws.”

She added when establishments give people the option to use the bathroom they “want to rather than the bathroom that is there according to your biological function,” it gives them the opportunity to “violate and observe people of the opposite sex.”

Senator Paul Rose (R-Covington) said the bathrooms on the Capitol floor are single-use and sometimes lawmakers have to use other bathrooms out of necessity. 

When asked how this bill would apply to situations like this, Bowling responded “that person will do their business and get out of there quickly.”

“This is for if you are there and there is a person of the opposite sex and you do gaze on them — look on them — in a way that would make them feel violated,” said Bowling.

Elizabeth Insogna, committee attorney, mentioned that as the amendment is currently drafted, a criminal offense would still apply even if the bathroom was not occupied by another person.

“As the bill is drafted right now, if you knowingly entered or remained in the restroom that didn’t correspond with the person’s biological sex, that would be an offense,” said Insogna.

Senator Kerry Robert (R-Springfield) recommended that the wording and language used in the amendment be “tightened up” as the definition of “remain” had not been clearly defined in the context of the bill. 

A motion was made by Senator Jon Lundberg (R-Bristol) to move the bill to summer study, as he mentioned that he had heard from the business community about “concerns” they have regarding the bill, and that he didn’t want to rush something “of this magnitude that could have an negative impact.”

Bowling said that if clarification was needed, she is “glad” for the bill to go to summer study, as it is “timely.”

“I’ve heard from many parents in schools in particular where the boys go in and there’s a girl sitting on the urinal, where the boys go into the girls bathroom, and it’s getting out of hand. We need to stop what’s happening for the sake of privacy and health,” Bowling said.

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

Tennessee Sued Over Anti-Transgender Bathroom Law

An LGBTQ advocacy group filed a federal lawsuit against Tennessee earlier this week, challenging a bathroom bill that restricts transgender students’ use of school restrooms. 

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) filed the lawsuit in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of two transgender children. 

The lawsuit alleges that the Tennessee Accommodations for All Children Act (also known as the School Facilities Law), signed by Governor Bill Lee in May, “unfaily discriminates against transgender children.”

“By singling out transgender students for disfavored treatment and explicitly writing discrimination against transgender people into State law, the School Facilities Law violates the most basic guarantees of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” the lawsuit reads. 

The lawsuit further argues that the law endangers the safety, privacy, security, and well-being of transgender students through “intentional and inherent discrimination.” 

“The law invites potential harassment and assault of non-transgender students who may not fit gender expectations or stereotypes associated with their gender identity by giving private persons a right of action to sue under the Law, and thereby encouraging independent policing of everyone who uses a multi-occupancy restroom,” the lawsuit reads. 

The lawsuit seeks to block the state from enforcing the law, while requiring that the plaintiffs, along with other students, are allowed to use multi-occupancy restrooms matching their gender identity. 

HRC president Alphonso David calls the law in question “morally reprehensible” and “devoid of any sound legal justification.” 

“Courts have time-and-time again ruled against these dangerous and discriminatory laws and we are going to fight in court to strike down this one and protect the civil rights of transgender and non-binary young people,” David said in a press release. “With our representation of two transgender kids today, we are sending a strong message of support for all transgender and non-binary children across the country [that] you matter, and your legal rights should be respected.” 

The law being challenged is one of five targeting transgender students signed into law this year in Tennessee. Together, the laws prevent transgender students from participating in high school and middle school sports, prevent physicians from prescribing hormone treatment for prepubertal transgender youth, require public schools to notify parents before offering any curriculum about sexual orientation and gender identity, and require businesses with bathrooms open to the public to post a notice at the entrance of each public restroom if the business allows transgender individuals to use the restrooms corresponding with their gender identity. 

This is the second lawsuit filed in response to one of these laws. The first, filed in May by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenges the Business Bathroom Bill, which requires businesses to post signs if they allow transgender customers to use multi-occupancy restrooms. A federal judge has preliminarily blocked the law from being implemented. 

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Props to AG Slatery

A few weeks back, we used this space to look mildly askance at state Attorney General Herb Slatery for a bit of what we perceived as waffling on the matter of laws denying bathroom preference to transgenders. Slatery, we noted, had interceded unmistakably during the 2016 session of the General Assembly to prevent passage of such a law in Tennessee, and his criticism of that proposed legislation as a likely impediment to the state’s eligibility for Title IX federal funding is probably what caused its eventual withdrawal.

So far, so good. But then we took the A.G. to task for his decision to join 10 other states in a lawsuit challenging a directive from President Obama advising states strongly (if a bit ambiguously) to allow transgenders to use the bathroom facilities of their declared gender. We saw no bigotry in Slatery’s action, just a bit of legal hair-splitting that allowed him — and the state of Tennessee — some standing room on both sides of a controversial issue.

Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery

In any case, turnabout is fair play, and we now deem it only fair to give Slatery his props for taking effective, ethical, and legally defensible positions on a couple of other public issues. Back in February, the selfsame Tennessee legislature formally directed Slatery to sue the federal government over the federal refugee program in an effort to prevent victims of the ongoing Syrian violence from being resettled in the state.

Slatery took that matter under advisement and recently responded with a courtly but firm statement of “No, thank you.” Said the A.G. in a letter to the clerks of both the state Senate and state House of Representatives: “I have constitutional concerns about one branch of government telling another what to do.” Slatery deferred to attorneys for the two legislative branches to sue away to their hearts’ content if they chose to, but they would have to do so independently of his office, he said, advising the legislators that such an action would almost certainly be futile. A better course of action, he suggested, would be for state officials to request quarterly fact-finding meetings with representatives of the federal government and, further, to sit in on ongoing public sessions being conducted by Catholic Charities, which operates the Tennessee Office for Refugees.

A most judicious response, we thought. We support Slatery in that action, as well as in his adamant stand, more recently, that citizens of Tennessee are entitled to know the contents of a recent state investigation into alleged misconduct by state Representative Jeremy Durham (R-Franklin). Late in this year’s legislative session, Durham was banished to an office outside the state Capitol and ordered to keep his distance from interns and other staffers in the wake of complaints of sexual harassment on his part. He is now suing Slatery and state House Speaker Beth Harwell in an effort to prevent publication of the state’s findings in his case.

In response to Durham’s claim that such publication would do him “irreparable harm,” the attorney general countered on Monday of this week that, au contraire, the harm would be to the “public interest” if the results of the investigation should be suppressed.

Well done, we say. It is long past time for some redeeming sunlight on the predatory behavior of the Durhams in government.