Transgender Student’s Lawsuit Over Locker Room Access Costs District Millions

One of the most debated issues facing school and athletics administrators today involves the rights of transgender athletes. To some administrators, gender is binary, and based on the gender assigned at birth. People are either female with two X chromosomes or male with an X and a Y chromosome. Others see gender as linear, with males and females representing only two of many points on a fluid spectrum.

Because of the debates surrounding gender, it should surprise no one that 25 states have passed laws prohibiting transgender female athletes from competing in youth and high school sports against athletes who were born female.

While transgender laws may vary from state to state, new federal regulations took effect in August that clarify Title IX’s protections against sex-based discrimination in education. The new regulations state that Title IX applies to sexual orientation and gender identity, not just biological gender. The regulations, which do not address the more contentious issue of whether transgender athletes should be allowed on sex-separated sports teams, have already been temporarily blocked in 26 states. 

With state and federal governments increasingly in conflict over the issue, it is easy to see how school and athletics administrators can feel confused when addressing the rights of transgender athletes. Being on the wrong side of the law, however, can have severe consequences for both the transgender athlete and the entire school community. The social and financial impact of such cases on a school district can be seen in R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 371. 

On the grounds of sex

R.M.A., who was born a female, legally changed his name in the fourth grade and successfully petitioned to legally amend his birth certificate to reflect his identified gender and new name a few years later. While allowed to participate with boys in physical education classes and athletics in middle school, including as a member of the eighth-grade boys’ football and track teams, the Blue Springs (Mo.) R-IV School District required him to use a separate, single-person, unisex bathroom. The district also refused to give him access to the boys’ locker room during P.E. or athletic activities.

Unlike the locker room to which other boys had access, the single-person bathroom that R.M.A. was required to use did not contain lockers or shower facilities. The Blue Springs R-IV School District continued to deny R.M.A. access to the high school boys’ restrooms and locker rooms the following year, as well.

As a result of this denied access, R.M.A. elected not to participate in high school sports. Instead, he filed a lawsuit against the school district claiming that it discriminated against him in the use of a public accommodation “on the grounds of his sex” in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. The law states that “it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person ... advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation ... or to segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof on the grounds of ... sex.”  In addition, R.M.A. claimed that he was deeply embarrassed and distressed by his exclusion from the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms. He said the school district had singled him out for disparate treatment from other boys based on his sex.

In its defense, the school district offered varying explanations for denying R.M.A. access to the same accommodations as the other boys. In particular, the school district argued that while R.M.A. may identify as male, his legal sex may be male and he may have transitioned to living as a male, he is still biologically a female with female genitalia. As a result, the district argued that R.M.A. was trying to extend the Missouri Human Rights Act beyond biological sex to include claims of discrimination based on transgender status, which it asserted are not covered under the act.

While the trial court dismissed R.M.A.’s petition with prejudice, the Missouri Supreme Court in R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District, 568 S.W.3d 420 (2019) vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case back to that court for further proceedings. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that R.M.A. had satisfied the requirements under Missouri state law for the case to go to trial. After a five-day trial in 2021, the jury returned a verdict in R.M.A.’s favor. It awarded him $175,000 in compensatory damages, $4,000,000 in punitive damages, and $558,313.72 in attorneys’ fees, for a total of $4,733,313.72.

The school district filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. In agreeing with the school district, the trial court entered an amended judgment granting the motion. In support of the decision to grant a new trial on all claims, the trial court held that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. R.M.A. appealed the trial court’s ruling again, arguing that the trial court erred in granting a new trial because he made a submissible case. R.M.A. claimed that the evidence presented showed that he was subjected to public accommodation discrimination and that his sex was a contributing factor for such treatment.  

Reckless disregard of rights

In reviewing the trial court’s order granting a new trial case, the court held that R.M.A. must: 1) show that the school board denied him the full and equal use and enjoyment of the males’ restroom and locker room facilities, 2) that R.M.A.’s male sex was a contributing factor in such denial, and 3) that R.M.A. sustained damages as a direct result of such conduct. Since R.M.A. claimed discrimination based on his sex, he was required to allege he is either male or female. The school district argued that R.M.A.’s gender might be male, but his sex is female. In rejecting this argument, the court held that the term “sex,” as used in the Missouri Human Rights Act, is not limited to biological sex alone and is not determined solely by the genitalia displayed at birth.

In this case, R.M.A. was issued an amended birth certificate, which states that he is male, and that alone is enough to establish a sufficient basis for the jury to have concluded that R.M.A. is male. In addition, by holding that R.M.A.’s petition was sufficient to state a claim, when that petition identified R.M.A. as an individual who was born female but transitioned to male, the Missouri Supreme Court has already concluded that R.M.A. could be considered male. 

As for the issue of whether the school district denied R.M.A. access to the boys’ locker room because of his male sex, the trial court ruled that R.M.A. had failed to establish his male sex was a contributing factor in the decisions to exclude access to male-designated bathrooms and locker rooms. In particular, the trial court found that his access was denied based on his female anatomy, not his male sex.

On appeal, the court held that it was reasonable for the jury to have concluded that R.M.A.’s male sex was a contributing factor in the discrimination based on the evidence presented at trial. In support of this conclusion, the appeals court, citing the United States Supreme Court, held that it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being gay or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Therefore, the court concluded that — based on the evidence at trial — the school district discriminated against R.M.A. because his male sex did not fit their preconceived notions of what the male sex should be. This is discrimination based on R.M.A.’s male sex, and R.M.A. had made a submissible case with respect to this element.

As for damages, the school district argued that there was no evidence to support R.M.A.’s claim for punitive damages because there was no evidence showing evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others. Based on the evidence presented at the trial, the appeals court found that the school district had an unwritten policy of using birth certificates to determine sex. The school district refused to honor R.M.A.’s corrected birth certificate stating he is male, despite the fact that R.M.A.’s mother tried repeatedly for years to work with the district to resolve R.M.A.’s issues. The superintendent and the school board refused to meet with her. As a result, the appeals court held there was sufficient evidence that the school district acted with reckless disregard of R.M.A.’s rights. 

Evolving legal landscape 

Having found that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the school district discriminated against R.M.A., the appeals court ruled that the trial court’s granting of JNOV was in error and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees requested and enter an appropriate award. However, while the court may reduce the amount of attorney fees, the school district is still liable for more than $4.2 million, since the court left no doubt that the Blue Springs School District discriminated against R.M.A.

So, what lessons can school and athletics administrators learn from R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District?

First, the court’s decision should make it clear that if school and athletics administrators discriminate against transgender athletes, it can have a tremendously negative social and financial impact on both the athlete and the entire school community. R.M.A. lost the opportunity to play high school sports, while the school district was required to pay millions of dollars in damages.

Second, given the evolving legal landscape, it is imperative that school and athletics administrators, as well as students, check the U.S. Department of Education’s website — www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/sexoverview.html — to determine what rules apply in their state. As noted above, the new federal regulations have only been temporarily blocked in some states. Based on the impending results of November’s elections, the regulations could either become law across the country or be repealed entirely.