Maine Supreme Court rules in favor of transgender girl in Orono school bathroom case

[alp227]

Source: Bangor Daily News

PORTLAND, Maine — The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday reversed a lower court’s decision that banned a transgender child from using the girls’ bathroom in Orono schools.

In a 5-1 decision, the justices said that Superior Court Justice William Anderson erred when he ruled in favor of what is now Riverside RSU 26.

“Our opinion must not be read to require schools to permit students casual access to any bathroom of their choice,” Justice Warren Silver wrote for the majority. “Decisions about how to address students’ legitimate gender identity issues are not to be taken lightly. Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the (Maine Human Rights Commission).”

The incident that sparked the court case began in 2007 when a child, who was born male but identifies as female, was forced to stop using the girls bathroom at the Asa Adams Elementary School in Orono. She was told to use a staff bathroom after the grandfather of a male student complained.

Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2014/01/30/news/bangor/maine-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-transgender-girl-in-orono-school-bathroom-case/

[azurnoir]

1. she's a girl it should be left at that period

forcing her to use the boys bathroom is inexcusable

[RKP5637]

2. Excellent! n/t

[cinnabonbon]

3. Thank goodness! They got a good judge.

[happyslug]

4. Here is the actual opinion

Last edited Fri Jan 31, 2014, 01:53 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me11do.pdf

The issue is narrower then this short story suggests. The trial judge (and the dissent in the Maine Supreme Court) took the position that since the State Legislature had passed the act protecting children on the basis of sexual orientation but did NOT change the the School Code as to the requirement of the Schools Restrooms be separated by sex, that the decision of the School to require the Student to use a separate restroom from the rest of the student body was legal and if the State Legislature did not like it, the State Legislature could change the statute in question.

The Child's parents objected to the ruling by the Trial Judge and filed the appeal. The decision of the trial judge was reversed and the School was held to have committed discrimination due to sexual orientation.

The Trial Judge and the dissent objected to that finding, on the grounds the facts of the case showed that the school was trying to work out a solution to appease everyone. They treated and called the Child a "girl" and left her use the girl's restroom till the fifth grade. In the fifth grade a boy followed her into the girl's restroom and claim since the child in question could use the girl's restroom should could he (the Boy was put up to this by the person he lived with who opposed how the school was handling the child in question). This brought the issue to a head and the School decided the best solution was to have the child use a unisex restroom normally reserved for teachers. i.e NOT the boys restroom, and not the girls restroom. It was that decision the parents objected to and filed an action in Court to stop.

I hate to say this is a tough call. No matter what the school does, someone is going to call the decision wrong. Remember the child thinks of herself as a "girl" and is treated as a "girl" but in a boy's body. Outside of the restroom she was treated as a girl, but some people wanted her treated as a boy. Outside the restroom, the school could treat most acts of the child like any other act of a child of her age, whether the child was male or female. When it came to the restroom that rule can no longer be applied. A decision had to be made as to what restroom this child could use. Prior to the dispute with the boy who followed her into the girl's restroom, not a problem, but that act made it a problem,

I hate to say this, but it is the school that has to deal with parents of all of their students and thus I think it should be left up to them how to handle such a dispute and be given the benefit of any doubt. They treated the child as a girl and when a problem arouse they solved it by the simple expediency of having her use the only unisex restroom in the school. They did NOT force the child to use the boys restroom (Which would be a different case, for that is clearly discrimination given the psychological reports cited by the Judges) they tried to solve the problem is a neutral a way as possible.

People may not like the solution, but I have to give the School the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making close call decisions as to discrimination. It is clear the School did not want to discriminate against this girl, but they also had to address the issue of what sex is she when it came to the use of the restrooms. The decision to have her use a unisex restroom was a good solution and one I think the court should have upheld on the grounds it solved a dispute without to much discrimination.

Remember the Court ruled that is was discrimination against this girl for having her use a unisex restroom instead of the girl's restroom. No one wanted to force her to use the boy's restroom.