TERRE HAUTE, Ind.–Two Terre Haute North High School students who identify as male were denied the right to use the boys/men’s restrooms, said the ACLU of Indiana. They and Indiana Legal Services sued the Vigo County School Corp., on their behalf Monday.
The ACLU said the students have long identified as male and are under a doctor’s care, receiving hormone therapy.
LISTEN: Ken Falk explains the case
The ACLU claims the denial is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), which makes discrimination on the basis of sex illegal.
“Denying a student their right to use the correct restroom is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana Legal Director. “Schools should be a safe place for kids and the refusal to allow a student to use the correct restroom can be extremely damaging.”
Falk said he believes the case against the school system is solid.
“This is not something that is subject to debate. There’s a case right on point from the 7th Circuit, which is the appellate court over Indiana. We won a case a couple of years ago in Evansville raising the exact same issue,” he said.
Falk said discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination,
“The law gives transgender students the same opportunities as their peers to learn, grow, and succeed at school,” said Kathleen Bensberg, Staff Attorney with the LGBT Project at Indiana Legal Services. “We look forward to working with ACLU to represent these students in this case.”
The ACLU said that students who identify as male and who are not allowed to use male restrooms may face bullying and may avoid using the restroom while at school.
“Gender dysphoria is a recognized condition and gender dysphoria means your gender at birth does not match the gender with which you identify,” said Falk. “Any steps that are taken to further make the person with gender dysphoria feel out of touch with that current identity is extremely detrimental.”
The district said they had no comment because the suit was pending litigation.
