In recent years, there have been increasing concerns involving discrimination faced by the transgender community.  Not surprisingly, these concerns have centered on the challenges faced by gender non-conforming students and whether the needs of such students are being met by school officials.  Though the law on gender identity is still in its relative infancy, schools are now mandated to create and maintain a safe school environment free from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression under Connecticut law.  Though the relevant federal civil rights laws do not expressly extend to gender identity or expression, it is increasingly clear that the federal government has taken the position that there is protection for gender non-conforming students under federal law.  For example, last month, the U.S Departments of Education and Justice (the “Government”) jointly filed a “Statement of Interest” challenging a school district’s legal contention that a transgender student may only establish a claim of sex discrimination based on evidence of sex stereotyping.

In his complaint, the plaintiff, a student presenting as male, alleged that school officials refused to allow him to use male restrooms, and instead, required that he use a female staff or a unisex restroom, which resulted in peer harassment. The plaintiff also alleged that school officials revealed his status to members of the school community by repeatedly using his birth name and female pronouns when referring to him. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that after his mother expressed concerns to school officials, an administrator told his mother she was “being overly sensitive.”

In defense, the school district filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the evidence proffered by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish a claim of sex discrimination.  In challenging the school district’s argument, the Government argued that Title IX provides protection for transgender students.  More specifically, the Government asserted that “[u]nder Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, discrimination based on a person’s non-conformity to sex stereotypes, a person’s gender identity, or a person’s transgender status constitutes [sic] discrimination based on sex.”
Continue Reading Federal Government Files ‘Statement of Interest’ In Gender-Identity Case

In a recent court ruling, Judge Garvan Murthai of the Vermont District Court allowed a parent’s First Amendment claims to go forward to trial after the Superintendent banned the parent, whose child was eligible for special education and related services, from all school grounds, including banning the parent from board of education meetings.

The school district banned the parent after he had made harassing and threatening statements to school staff and committed acts that frightened school staff. The parent allegedly drove past his child’s teacher’s house in another state, banged his fists on tables during meetings, randomly drove by the school when it was not in session and honked the horn when he knew that the school’s principal was the only person in the building, and shouted loudly at school staff on a continual basis. The parent also filed several complaints against the school district, put up signs and handed out flyers at board meetings. Additionally, the parent made threatening and potentially violent statements in online forums about the school and school staff.

The Superintendent called the police department after receiving a “duty to warn” call from the student’s psychologist because the student had expressed a desire to kill school staff with an axe. School staff believed that the student must have repeated something that he heard in the home and became alarmed. The police department provided the Superintendent with a “notice against trespass” that the Superintendent gave to the parent. The “notice of trespass” banned the parent for two years from entering any school grounds for any reason.

In its ruling allowing the case to go to trial, the court found that the parent had no First Amendment right of access to school buildings and that school board meetings were limited public fora. Accordingly, the judge held that the limits on the parent’s speech by banning him from school property were “collateral consequences” of his own potentially dangerous actions and that his right of access was not implicated because the school district did not ban him based on his speech. 
Continue Reading Vermont District Court Allows First Amendment Case to Go Forward Against School Board for Banning Parent from School Grounds

On October 21, 2014, United States Assistant Secretary Catherine Lhamon issued another Dear Colleague Letter on the topic of bullying of students with disabilities.  This
Continue Reading FAPE-Based Approach to Bullying Complaints

Two New Jersey school districts, who are being sued for their failure to halt bullying against the plaintiff student, were successful in their efforts to

Continue Reading School Districts Seek to Have Parents of Student “Bullies” Contribute to any Judgment Against Districts

Two recent Connecticut Superior Court decisions have held that the state’s anti-bullying legislation, most recently revised in 2011, does not create a private right of

Continue Reading Courts Hold that Connecticut’s Bullying Law does not Create a Private Cause of Action

A parent has filed suit against a Florida school district over a policy regarding service animals that requires the family to provide a handler and

Continue Reading Parent Sues Florida School District for Requiring Handler for Student’s Service Dog

School districts around the country are increasingly using cloud-based technologies to store their data. According to a recent study by the Fordham University Law School’s

Continue Reading New Study Warns of Risks of Using Cloud-Based Record Storage