The Evolving Field of Transgender Rights in Private Schools: Part III
This article outlines what schools should consider as they make, amend, or review policies and best practices relevant to transgender students.
September 12, 2018 at 04:17 PM
7 minute read
Editor's note: This is the final article in a three-part series.
Courts have yet to definitively settle questions surrounding transgender rights in the educational context. Schools can help mitigate some of that uncertainty, however, by proactively developing policies to address the rights of transgender students and others. Part I of this article gave an overview of this area of the law, primarily by discussing Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Part II discussed other relevant federal and state laws. This article outlines what schools should consider as they make, amend, or review policies and best practices relevant to transgender students.
|What Does a School Need to Consider?
Policies matter. Each school is unique and needs to develop—and update—policies that further the culture and mission of the school. Policies also provide certainty to staff and establish expectations for students and their families. When a school has not developed intentional policies, it develops informal ones by default. As schools address or update policies, they will need to consider a variety of questions, including the following:
- Does the school treat students according to gender identity if it is different than the student's biological sex?
This is the core issue. It will guide the development of all policies from locker room access to dress codes.
If the school treats students consistent with their gender identity when it conflicts with biological sex, does the school make accommodations for students who have privacy concerns about sharing facilities with a transgender student? Additionally, if the school is a residential school, there may be other interactions among students that create heightened privacy concerns and require additional privacy options. Moreover, what, if anything, does a student need to do to establish his or her gender identity?
If the school does not treat students consistent with their gender identity, and if the school falls within the scope of Title IX, the school may violate Title IX. See Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, No. 17-3113 (June 18, 2018). Remedies available to individual plaintiffs in Title IX cases include compensatory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees, see, e.g., Dawn L. v. Greater Johnstown School District, 586 F. Supp. 2d 332, 383 (W.D. Pa. 2008). If the school is not subject to Title IX, are there other federal statutes, or state or municipal laws, that prohibit discrimination based on “sex” and that could be interpreted as requiring the recognition of transgender rights?
- When can a student change his or her records?
Schools may receive requests from students or alumni to change the gender identification on a student's educational records. For schools that receive funds under programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education, the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) provides the framework for the disclosure of and correction to educational records.
Generally, FERPA prohibits the disclosure of student records unless authorized by a parent or student over the age of 18. FERPA also provides a right to seek to amend school records when those records are “inaccurate, misleading or in violation of a student's right to privacy.” A former student who has transitioned to a new gender identity may wish to change the gender identity or the name listed on his or her educational records. This request could originate from a desire for future employers to not know about the transition, or simply to have the gender reference reflect the former student's current gender identity.
Several issues arise when confronted with a request to change gender identity in school records. First, what are the records intended to reflect, and are they accurate? Do the educational records reflect the student's gender identity at the time the student was at the institution or continuing information about the student?
Second, if educational records are accurate, may they still violate a right to privacy if they would, by implication, convey that the student transitioned to a different gender identity?
FERPA does not provide a private cause of action. As a result, an institution's liability is limited to a potential loss of federal funding, and not damages. For schools where FERPA does not apply, following FERPA's interpretation can inform best practices.
- What about housing or overnight accommodations on field trips?
If the school recognizes gender identity, how does it respect the privacy of nontransgender students? With respect to housing or roommates, could a school recognize gender and biological sex differences but still segregate students based on biological sex for certain activities? And, as discussed above, the FHA may provide additional requirements even for those schools that are not traditionally subject to Title IX. Although it is beyond the scope of this article, residential schools will also need to determine how to address employment issues related to dorm advisers and other residential positions.
- What about athletics?
The issue of athletic participation is usually governed by an association or other group's rules. The Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, Inc. (PIAA) has a bylaw regarding “mixed gender participation” in interscholastic athletics. Article XVI, Section 4 of the PIAA's bylaws classifies sports “by gender” and generally limits mixed-gender participation within a sport.
The bylaws, at least indirectly, address the rights of transgender students, noting that when “a student's gender is questioned or uncertain,” PIAA will accept the decision of a school's principal “as to the student's gender,” see 2017-2018 PIAA Constitution and By-Laws.
A potential way to address questions of gender is to treat individuals uniformly based on the gender marker listed on the student's birth certificate. Initially, this may have been a way to treat students solely according to biological sex. Now, however, it may be a viable approach that promotes uniformity and puts control into the hands of the student and his or her family. In states like Pennsylvania, there is a simple procedure for changing the gender marker on a birth certificate. It may not satisfy everyone, but it promotes uniformity, uses state issued documents, and avoids administrators from needing to make case-by-case determinations regarding a student's gender.
|Conclusion
Given the increased attention surrounding transgender rights, the question is not if, but when, a school will need to navigate these issues. When developing policies, schools should:
- Be proactive. Develop clear policies and apply them consistently.
- Educate staff and the school community regarding those policies and transgender issues.
- Make the policies part of the student handbook. This creates and manages expectations, and the handbook may form a contract between the school and the student.
- Keep abreast of legislation and legal developments. What is current today may not be tomorrow.
Schools that act proactively and develop thoughtful policies, instead of reactive responses, will be able to act confidently when issues regarding transgender students arise.
Justin G. Weber is a partner with Pepper Hamilton and attorney-in-charge of the Harrisburg office. He is a member of the firm's trial and dispute resolution practice, a seasoned and trial-ready team of advocates who help clients analyze and solve their most emergent and complex problems through negotiation, arbitration and litigation.
Brian H. Callaway is an associate with the firm, resident in the Philadelphia office. Callaway concentrates his practice on commercial litigation, including media law, insurance bad faith litigation and complex contract disputes.
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 AllFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
- 2Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 3Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
- 4Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 5European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
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