US appeals court rules charter school dress code (skirts for girls and pants for boys) violates Equal Protection Clause

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Tuesday that a North Carolina school’s dress code requiring females to wear skirts violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The Charter Day School required all female students to wear skirts, noting that “girls are ‘fragile vessels’ deserving of ‘gentle’ treatment by boys.” Male students were required to wear shorts or pants. All students were required to wear a unisex polo shirt. Failure to comply with the dress code resulted in disciplinary measures, including parental notification, removal from class, and even expulsion.

Several mothers of female students sued the school and argued the dress code was a “sex-based classification rooted in gender stereotypes.” They asserted that the dress code made female students feel like they were more delicate than boys, were not worth as much as boys, and should be less active than boys. Additionally, girls avoided numerous physical activities in school, like climbing, using the swings, and playing soccer due to the skirt requirement.

The charter school responded by claiming they emphasized “traditional values” and implemented the dress code to instill discipline and keep order.

The Fourth Circuit decided that the dress code was discriminatory and treated females unequally. The school’s interest in preserving traditional values was not sufficient to withstand judicial scrutiny. The court concluded that if the school wishes to keep its “traditional” dress code, then it cannot operate as a charter school.

The post US appeals court rules charter school dress code violates Equal Protection Clause appeared first on JURIST – News.

Watch now 10 hours of “II Congreso Internacional LGBTI de Andalucía” (in Spanish and sign language)

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLzRL2oB7-o

Prix senior Maurice Chalumeau (PhD thesis)

Prix senior Maurice Chalumeau
Le «Centre Maurice Chalumeau en sciences des sexualités» octroie chaque année ce prix destiné à récompenser des thèses de doctorat non encore publiées, dans le domaine des sexualités. Délai de dépôt de candidature: 1er septembre 2022.

S’inscrire

ECtHR: Inadequate legal response to homophobic murder: Bulgarian law must change

In today’s [14 June 2022] Chamber judgment in the case of Stoyanova v. Bulgaria (application no. 56070/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the homophobic murder of the applicant’s 26-year-old son. His attackers, secondary-school students, had singled him out for assault because they had thought he looked like a homosexual. The attackers had been found guilty of aggravated murder, but had been given sentences which were below the statutory minimum after the courts took into account mitigating factors such as their young age and clean criminal records.

The Court found in particular that, although the Bulgarian courts had clearly established that the reason behind the attack had been the perpetrators’ hatred for homosexuals, there had been no tangible legal consequences. This was because the Bulgarian Criminal Code did not provide for homophobia as a specific aggravating factor in respect of the crime of murder. Therefore, under Article 46 (binding force and implementation), the Court found that Bulgaria had to ensure that violent attacks motivated by hostility towards the victim’s actual or presumed sexual
orientation were treated as aggravated in criminal-law terms.

A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link)

USA: Federal judge temporarily restrains Texas investigations of families over gender-affirming care for minors

A US federal judge Friday temporarily restrained Texas from investigating doctors or parents over gender-affirming care for minors. The order includes families who are a part of LGBTQ+ organization PFLAG.

Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, released an opinion which prompted the investigation in February. The opinion states that under Texas law any gender-affirming care provided to a minor is “child abuse.” 

Paxton stated following the opinion:

There is no doubt that these procedures are ‘abuse’ under Texas law, and thus must be halted. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) has a responsibility to act accordingly. I’ll do everything I can to protect against those who take advantage of and harm young Texans.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott approved the opinion and mandated that state agencies investigate gender-affirming care for minors as child abuse.

The case filed earlier this week is brought by three transgender children and their parents, who began being investigated after the children were prescribed gender-affirming treatment.

Brian Bond, PFLAG executive director, said following the order that “[f]amilies will be protected from invasive, unnecessary, and unnerving investigations by DFPS simply for helping their transgender children thrive and be themselves is a very good thing.” 

The post US federal judge temporarily restrains Texas investigations of families over gender-affirming care for minors appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: North Carolina federal judge rules for transgender state employees challenging health plan

A judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina found Friday in favor of transgender state employees who were denied gender-affirming healthcare coverage. Judge Loretta Biggs ruled that the state health plan must offer “medically necessary services for the treatment of gender dysphoria.”

The plaintiffs, represented by Lamda Legal and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), filed their complaint in 2019 and alleged that the refusal of coverage for gender-affirming healthcare by state employer healthcare plans violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by unlawfully discriminating based on sex and transgender status.

Biggs agreed, concluding:

Issues surrounding transgender healthcare evoke strong emotional and political opinions. … But politics and emotion are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. Plaintiffs’ doctors, their experts, every major medical association, and Defendants’ own third-party administrators all agree that, in certain cases, gender affirming medical and surgical care can be medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria. Defendants attempt to create scientific controversy in this uniform agreement through experts who mix their scientific analysis with hypothetical speculation and political hyperbole. Only science that is relevant, reliable, and offered by a qualified expert is admissible, however, and the admissible portions of Defendants’ expert’s testimony, even when taken in the light most favorable to Defendants, do not justify the exclusion at issue. Defendants’ belief that gender affirming care is ineffective and unnecessary is simply not supported by the record. Consequently, their categorical sex- and transgender-based exclusion of gender affirming treatments from coverage unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII.

Julia McKeown, an assistant professor in the College of Education at North Carolina State University, said following the ruling, “I am thrilled beyond measure for this powerful victory not only for myself but other transgender employees across the state.” She also noted, “As government employees, all we want is equal access to healthcare, but we were denied just because we are transgender.”

The post North Carolina federal judge rules for transgender state employees challenging health plan appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Federal judge rules employers cannot deny gender affirming care

A US federal judge in Georgia Thursday ruled that employers who exclude gender-affirming medical care from their healthcare insurance coverage violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anna Lange, a sheriff’s deputy, brought the case against her boss, Cullen Talton, and Houston County, Georgia. Lange, who began her gender transition in 2017, was unable to get coverage approved for her to receive gender-affirming care under the health insurance plan provided by her employer. In her complaint, she argued that the health plan adopted was discriminatory;  the county and Talton “knowingly and intentionally chose to adopt and maintain the [policy].” She said she made a repeated request to remove or waive the policy.

Lange, who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, had a doctor recommend gender-affirming treatment to her. However, the insurance plan Lange had excluded treatment for gender dysphoria, including talk therapy, hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery.

In the order, Judge Marc Treadwell cites the US Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in <u>Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia</u>, where the court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 discrimination against a transgender person is unlawful. The order states that “the implication of Bostock is clear […] Bostock covers any possible intended point—discrimination on the basis of transgender status is discrimination on the basis of sex and is a violation of Title VII.”

After the decision, Lange said:

[It is] a huge relief to know that I can finally receive the medically necessary care that I was repeatedly and unfairly denied. I can confidently move forward with my life knowing that gender affirming care is protected under federal law. This decision is not only a personal victory, but a tremendous step forward for all transgender Southerners who are seeking insurance coverage for medically necessary care.

The post Federal judge rules employers cannot deny gender affirming care appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Couples involved in California same-sex marriage case ask US Supreme Court to allow release of trial video

The plaintiffs involved in California’s 2010 landmark same-sex marriage case Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to not block the public release of the court video recording the case, in which the state’s same-sex marriage ban was overturned.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding on a challenge by the original proponents of Proposition 8 to keep the video of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger/Brown trial under seal. In 2021 the challengers lost their bid to stop the trial video’s release in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the Ninth Circuit ruling that the challengers did not demonstrate a “particularized injury” and did not have standing under Article III of the US Constitution.

The proponents’ requested that the Supreme Court overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision to allow the trial video’s release. They argued that the court video was only to be used in chambers.

The same sex couples involved in Perry, along with the City of San Francisco and tv station KQED, argue that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

In 2008 California’s Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban was approved by a referendum. This proposition created an amendment to the California Constitution “to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus reversing a state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California.”

The post Couples involved in California same-sex marriage case ask US Supreme Court to allow release of trial video appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Ohio House passes bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports

Ohio’s House of Representatives Wednesday passed a bill that prohibits transgender girls and women from participating on women’s high school and college athletic teams. The Save Women’s Sports Act, HB 151, passed 56 to 28 with Democrats voting in opposition, wasn’t intended to be scheduled for legislators originally.

The original text was to amend the Ohio Resident Educator Program, assisting new teachers with mentoring and professional development in their early careers. Jena Powell, a Darke County Republican, offered an amendment to the bill based on an earlier piece of legislation she proposed last year, HB 61.

Currently, the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA), the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) regulate policies for transgender athletes to ensure medical privacy and fairness. OHSAA guidelines stipulate that transgender girls and women must have completed a minimum of 1 year of hormone treatment and/or demonstrate that they don’t possess any physical or physiological advantage over ‘genetic females.’  Equality Ohio said the text displays “a fundamental ignorance about transgender people and their participation in sports” and “attacks the Ohio High School Athletic Association and the NCAA in their ability to make policies that they deem are best for athletes.”

HB 151 would overrule these policies and institute a complete ban on transgender girls and women from playing women’s sports. The bill would require schools, state universities and private colleges to classify separate single-sex teams and sports for each sex. One of the bill most controversial provisions stipulates that a student with a “disputed” sex shall present a signed doctor’s statement clarifying their “internal and external reproductive anatomy,” testerone levels and genetic makeup. Representative Beth Liston criticized the bill and said she “strongly condemn[s] the Ohio Republicans’ policy of mandatory genital inspections for children who want to play sports.”

Powell believes allowing transgender women to play on women’s teams is a violation of Title IX, a regulation established in 1972 to prevent sex discrimination in education. In a West Virginia lawsuit over a similar bill, the US Department of Education and Department of Justice argued that Title IX “prohibit[s] discrimination against students because of their sex, including because a student is transgender.”

The Ohio Senate will consider the bill when it returns from its summer recess.

The post Ohio House passes bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: North Carolina State Senate passes LGTBQ education ban for elementary students

North Carolina State Senators Wednesday advanced legislation that will prohibit public school classroom instruction regarding sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to third grade.

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU) opposed the bill’s advancement, stating that LGBTQ students will be targeted and alienated by its enactment because it restricts what can be taught and what students can learn.

The North Carolina bill stipulates that:

Instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity shall not be included in the curriculum provided in grades kindergarten through third grade, regardless of whether the information is provided by school personnel or third parties. 

Additionally this bill would require parents to be notified by the school if their child requests to use a different name or pronoun. In response to the bill’s latest advancement, the ACLU of North Carolina wrote “The bill has passed. We’re disappointed but not surprised. And we will continue to fight for the rights of LGBTQ youth.”

This bill’s passage occurs after Florida signed the controversial Parental Rights in Education, deemed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, into law in March.

The post North Carolina State Senate passes LGTBQ education ban for elementary students appeared first on JURIST – News.