Doe v. Regional School Unit 26

Last updated

Doe v. Regional School Unit 26
Court Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Full case nameJohn Doe et. al. v. Regional School Unit 26
DecidedJanuary 30, 2014 (2014-01-30)
Holding
The Maine Human Rights Act requires public schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity.
Court membership
Judges sitting Donald G. Alexander, Warren Silver, Andrew Mead, Ellen Gorman, Joseph Jabar
Chief judge Leigh Saufley
Case opinions
Decision bySilver, joined by Alexander, Silver, Gorman, and Habar
ConcurrenceSaufley
DissentMead

Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 [1] [2] (also referred to as Doe v. Clenchy [3] ) was a landmark [4] anti-discrimination case decided by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in June 2013 involving right of transgender student Nicole Maines to use the female bathroom in her high school. [5] Upon initial filing, Maines was referenced by the pseudonym "Susan Doe" in court papers to protect her identity.

Contents

The case marked the first time that a state court ruled that denying a transgender student access to the bathroom consistent with their gender identity is unlawful. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Background

The Maine Human Rights Act was enacted in 1971 to protect Mainers against discrimination on the basis of race or color, disability, religion, and ancestry or national origin. Attempts to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics began as early as 1977, but weren't successful until 2005, when the legislature finally passed a law amending the Maine Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation and an attempted people's veto failed. [10] [11]

Case history

Nicole Maines was a student in Regional School Unit 26 in Orono, Maine, who began to identify as transgender when she was a toddler. She attended school in "gender-neutral clothing" until third grade, when she began openly identifying as a girl. [12] In fourth grade, the school implemented a 504 Plan to prepare Maines for the following year, when students would have communal bathrooms separated by sex.

In 2007, while Maines was in fifth grade, a male student followed her into the girls' restroom, claiming he was entitled to use it since Maines was. The student was acting on instructions from his grandfather, who opposed Maines' use of the girls' restroom. [13] To resolve the issue, the school district required that Maines only use a staff bathroom.

Maines' family filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, which joined them in a suit against the district in 2009, arguing that Maines' gender identity was protected under the Maine Human Rights Act. In 2012, a state judge sided with the district, saying the district had upheld its responsibility to Maines by providing her an alternate restroom, and was not liable for bullying she had faced from other students. In his decision, Judge William Anderson wrote, "It is no doubt a difficult thing to grow up transgender in today's society. This is a sad truth, which cannot be completely prevented by the law alone. The law casts a broad stroke where one more delicate and refined is needed. Although others mistreated [the girl] because she is transgender, our Maine Human Rights Act only holds a school accountable for deliberate indifference to known, severe and pervasive student-on-student harassment. It does no more." [14]

Supreme Judicial Court

Maines' family appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. In June 2014, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the school district had violated the Maine Human Rights Act, with Judge Warren Silver writing, "RSU 26’s later decision to ban [Nicole] from the girls’ bathroom, based not on a determination that there had been some change in Susan’s status but on others’ complaints about the school’s well-considered decision, constituted discrimination based on [Nicole's] sexual orientation."

The court prohibited the district from barring transgender students access to bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Maines and her family were awarded $75,000. [5] [15]

The sole dissenter, Judge Andrew Mead, agreed that Maines had been unfairly treated but disagreed that the Maine Human Rights Act protected her, and instead said he would prefer the legislature to amend the act to cover transgender individuals. In 2019, Governor Janet Mills signed L.D. 1701 to formally add gender identity to the protections of the Maine Human Rights Act. [16] [17]

Impact

Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 was the first case in which the Maine Supreme Judicial Court determined how the Maine Human Rights Act would apply to transgender students. [18] Significantly, it was also the first case in which any U.S. state supreme court held that transgender students had the right to use the bathroom of their gender identity. [4]

Maines is now an actress and a transgender rights activist. [19] [20]

Related Research Articles

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) is a non-profit legal rights organization in the United States. The organization works to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression. The organization primarily achieves this goal through litigation, advocacy, and education work in all areas of LGBT rights and the rights of people living with HIV. In addition, GLAD operates a legal information line, GLAD Answers, where LGBTQ & HIV+ residents of New England can receive attorney referrals and information about their rights. The organization changed its name to GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders in February 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Violence against transgender people</span> Violence or victimization against transgender people

Violence against transgender people includes emotional, physical, sexual, or verbal violence targeted towards transgender people. The term has also been applied to hate speech directed at transgender people and at depictions of transgender people in the media that reinforce negative stereotypes about them. Trans and non-binary gender adolescents can experience bashing in the form of bullying and harassment. When compared to their cisgender peers, trans and non-binary gender youth are at increased risk for victimisation, which has been shown to increase their risk of substance abuse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the United States</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States rank among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unisex public toilet</span> Public toilets that are not separated by sex

Unisex public toilets are public toilets that are not separated by gender or sex.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in California</span>

California is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, which have received nationwide recognition since the 1970s. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1976. Discrimination protections regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or expression were adopted statewide in 2003. Transgender people are also permitted to change their legal gender on official documents without any medical interventions, and mental health providers are prohibited from engaging in conversion therapy on minors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Maine</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Maine have the same legal rights as non-LGBT people. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Maine since December 2012, following a referendum in which a majority of voters approved an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited in the areas of employment, housing, credit and public accommodations. In addition, the use of conversion therapy on minors has been outlawed since 2019, and joint adoption is permitted for same-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Arkansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Arkansas face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arkansas. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Indiana enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT people. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Indiana since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Baskin v. Bogan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the Commonwealth of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT people. LGBT rights in the state are a recent occurrence with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective July 1, 2020, there is a state-wide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws also now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBT people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Alaska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Alaska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT Alaskans. Since 1980, same-sex sexual conduct has been allowed, and same-sex couples can marry since October 2014. The state offers few legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, leaving LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination in housing and public accommodations; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. In addition, four Alaskan cities, Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan, representing about 46% of the state population, have passed discrimination protections for housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Oklahoma</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Oklahoma face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Oklahoma as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Both same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples have been permitted since October 2014. State statutes do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal. This practice may still continue, as Oklahoma is an at-will employment state and it is still legal to fire an employee without requiring the employer to disclose any reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicole Maines</span> American actress and transgender rights activist

Nicole Amber Maines is an American actress, writer, and transgender rights activist. Prior to her acting career, she was the anonymous plaintiff in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court case Doe v. Regional School Unit 26, in which she argued her school district could not deny her access to the female bathroom for being transgender. The court ruled in 2014 that barring transgender students from the school bathroom consistent with their gender identity is unlawful, the first such ruling by a state court.

A bathroom bill is the common name for legislation or a statute that denies access to public toilets by gender or transgender identity. Bathroom bills affect access to sex-segregated public facilities for an individual based on a determination of their sex as defined in some specific way, such as their sex as assigned at birth, their sex as listed on their birth certificate, or the sex that corresponds to their gender identity. A bathroom bill can either be inclusive or exclusive of transgender individuals, depending on the aforementioned definition of their sex.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

<i>G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board</i> U.S. court case dealing with transgender rights

G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board was a court case dealing with transgender rights in the United States. The case involved a transgender boy attending a Virginia high school, who sued the local school board after he was forced to use girls' restrooms based on his assigned gender under the school board's policy. While the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the student based on Obama administration policy related to Title IX protections, the election of Donald Trump changed the underlying policy. A pending hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States was vacated and the case was sent back to the Fourth Circuit.

The legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States begins in the 1960s. Such legislation covers federal, state, municipal, and local levels, as well as military justice. It reflects broader societal attitudes which have shifted significantly over time and have impacted legislative and judicial outcomes.

References

  1. ↑ JOHN DOE et al. v. REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT 26(Maine Supreme Judicial CourtJanuary 30, 2014), Text .
  2. ↑ "Doe v. Reg'l Sch. Unit 26". Justia Law. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  3. ↑ "Doe v. Clenchy". GLAD. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  4. 1 2 "Nicole Maines' Landmark Trans Rights Lawsuit Ends In A Victorious $75,000 Settlement". Bustle. December 3, 2014. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  5. 1 2 Stout, David (December 3, 2014). "Transgender Teen Awarded $75,000 in School Restroom Lawsuit". Time . Retrieved January 10, 2016.
  6. ↑ Molloy, Parker Marie (January 30, 2014). "Maine Trans Student Wins Landmark Discrimination Case". The Advocate . Retrieved January 16, 2016.
  7. ↑ Sharp, David (January 30, 2014). "Court: Transgender student's rights were violated". Associated Press . Retrieved January 16, 2016.
  8. ↑ Sharp, David (January 31, 2014). "Maine court rules in favor of transgender pupil". Associated Press . Retrieved January 16, 2016.
  9. ↑ Wetzstein, Cheryl (January 30, 2014). "Potty parity: Transgender girl wins fight for bathroom of her choice". The Washington Times . Retrieved January 16, 2016.
  10. ↑ Sedlack, Anne (September 5, 2019). "The 28 Year Campaign to Include Sexual Orientation as a Protected Class in the Maine Human Rights Act and the Years that Followed". Student Impact Summit.
  11. ↑ "Maine Reject Extension of Civil Rights Protections Regardless of Sexual Orientation, Question 1 (2005)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  12. ↑ Doe v. Reg’l Sch. Unit 26. 2014 ME 11, ¶3 (Me. 2014).
  13. ↑ Gross, Terry (October 19, 2015). "'Becoming Nicole' Recounts One Family's Acceptance Of A Transgender Child". Fresh Air . Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  14. ↑ "Maine Judge Rules That School Did Not Discriminate Against Transgender Girl". www.advocate.com. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  15. ↑ Stout, David (December 3, 2014). "Transgender Teen Awarded $75,000 in Lawsuit". Time . Retrieved July 23, 2018.
  16. ↑ "Maine Expands Antidiscrimination Law and Restricts Noncompete Agreements". Ogletree. July 5, 2019. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  17. ↑ "PUBLIC Law, Chapter 464, An Act To Clarify Various Provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act". www.mainelegislature.org. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  18. ↑ Blad, Evie (January 30, 2014). "Maine Supreme Court Sides With Transgender Student on Bathroom Access". Education Week. ISSN   0277-4232 . Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  19. ↑ Kahen-Kashi, Freda; Dooley, Sean; Alfonseca, Kiara. "Fight for transgender equality transcends generations". ABC News. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  20. ↑ Wratten, Marcus (April 24, 2023). "Yellowjackets star Nicole Maines explains why trans visibility is so 'radical'". PinkNews | Latest lesbian, gay, bi and trans news | LGBTQ+ news. Retrieved May 23, 2024.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.