DOJ Says Title IX Doesn't Cover Transgender Status of High School Athletes
The Justice Department has weighed in on a Connecticut case that addresses whether transgender students can take part in girl's sports.
March 25, 2020 at 06:11 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Connecticut Law Tribune
Saying the federal government "has a significant interest in the proper interpretation of Title IX," the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in a case that could decide whether transgender athletes can compete in girl's high school sports in Connecticut.
In its 13-page brief, the Justice Department on Tuesday took aim at the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, the primary defendant in a lawsuit in which three high school girls claim they are at a disadvantage in competing with transgender athletes in sports such as track and field.
The athletic conference, the Justice Department wrote, "has adopted a policy that requires biological males to compete against biological females, despite the real physiological differences between the sexes if the male is a transgender individual who publicly identifies with the female gender."
At issue in Connecticut was a lawsuit that a conservative nonprofit filed last month on behalf of the three high school students. That group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, claimed transgender athletes have an unfair athletic advantage. The group, according to its website, is pro-life, supports heterosexual marriage and advocates for religious freedom.
The Justice Department's brief further says that Title IX "and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination solely 'on the basis of sex' and not on the basis of transgender status." The brief also states that Title IX "consistently uses 'sex' as a binary concept capturing only two categories: male and female."
While the Justice Department has written amicus briefs for issues related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which encompasses labor law, the statement of interest filed Tuesday in Connecticut federal court appears to be the first time the U.S. government has weighed in on a Title IX legal issue related to transgender athletes in high school.
The Justice Department submitted a brief last year asking the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude that Title VII doesn't protect transgender people from employer discrimination.
According to a Connecticut expert in Title IX laws, Main Justice's filing doesn't coincide with the facts.
Nina Pirrotti, a partner with New Haven-based Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, said the Trump administration often gets involved in litigation across the country siding against the interest of the LGBTQ community.
"The broader issue is that they are using Title IX as a sword, rather than a shield. It's about trying to marginalize one of the most vulnerable segments of our population, which are transgender people," Pirrotti said,
Pirrotti continued: "Everything the Trump administration has done with respect to Title IX is consistent with this approach. It's chipping away at Title IX protections and that includes transgender people. This narrows the class of people who can seek protection under Title IX."
Pirrotti noted the statement of interest "specifically references the potential consequences if these [transgender] girls can participate, which, the government says, includes paving the way toward transgender people being allowed to use the bathroom pertaining to the sex for which they identify."
The Trump administration in 2016 rescinded DOJ guidance issued under President Barack Obama that said federally funded schools should allow transgender children to use the bathroom of their choice.
Leading the fight for the three female students is Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel for the nonprofit that filed the lawsuit. Holcomb couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday, but in February she said, "What we are seeing in Connecticut is that when you allow biological males to play in the girls' categories across the board, girls lose that level playing field and the benefits and opportunities that Title IX was designed to provide."
The Justice Department's brief was signed by Matthew Donnelly, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 2The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250