Gavin Grimm’s Lawsuit Enters a New Phase

Today we filed an amended complaint in Gavin Grimm’s lawsuit to reverse his school district’s discriminatory policy, which prohibited him and other transgender students from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Gavin graduated from high school in June. Rather than continuing to wait for a ruling on his request for a preliminary injunction (which was filed more than two years ago), we’re moving forward with his claim for damages and his demand to end the anti-trans policy permanently.

Gavin was banned from using the boys’ restroom in December 2014, when he was a 15-year-old sophomore at Gloucester High School in Virginia. For the rest of his time at school, he was segregated from his peers and forced to use single-stall facilities that no other student was required to use.

Gavin continues on the legal path in seeking justice for transgender students.

In April 2016, Gavin won a landmark victory in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed him to use the boys’ restroom. Following that ruling, three other courts granted preliminary injunctions sought by other transgender students against anti-trans restroom policies. All three injunctions went into effect and none have been halted.  The plaintiffs in those cases have been able to attend school without being segregated and stigmatized.

But Gavin himself never got the same chance. In August 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the appellate court’s ruling while it decided whether it would take up the case. The Supreme Court did eventually decide to hear the case. But after the Trump administration withdrew policy guidance issued by the Obama administration to clarify protections for transgender students, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit for further consideration. As two of the Fourth Circuit judges noted, the Supreme Court’s actions meant that Gavin’s banishment from the boys’ restroom would be “an enduring feature of his high school experience.”

The fight, however, is not over. We remain confident in the strength of Gavin’s case. The withdrawal of the guidance does not change the fact that Gavin and other transgender students are protected under Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools, and that the school board’s bathroom policy violates that law. 

This case has been down a long, winding road, but the journey continues. As it works its way through the courts, it may yet reach the Supreme Court again. Every step of the way — beginning with his first speech before his school board — Gavin has shown great courage in standing up for himself and for other trans youth. As Judge Andre Davis put it, “By challenging unjust policies rooted in invidious discrimination, [Gavin Grimm] takes his place among other modern-day human rights leaders who strive to ensure that, one day, equality will prevail, and that the core dignity of every one of our brothers and sisters is respected by lawmakers and others who wield power over their lives.”

View comments (14)
Read the Terms of Use


The whole thing is ridiculous.For normal american heterosexuals to change what they do (which is normal) and start changing bathrooms around and having to deal with these freaks who want to blame God for their choice to be gay.Its not Gods fault you have an identity crisis.The rest of us know who we are GAVIN. Grimm!!!


Transgender people are not necessarily gay but if they were, your homophobia is showing. Transgender people just want to pee and poop like everyone else. They want to be comfortable and safe while doing it. You need to get a life and stop worrying about what bathroom a person uses.


The fact that they aren't necessarily gay is an even bigger problem. I don't want some trans "girl" in the locker room with my daughter pitching a tent. Don't give me that but the hormones take care of it argument either becausethey don't all take hormones and the point is that a biological male is in the female locker room getting aroused not that the hormones suppress it


In time we will look back at the days we cared so much about where we pee and poop and cringe. We all evacuate. Who cares if it happens in a place labeled 'men' or 'women'. The toilets flush just the same.


Well then why don't they just use the restrooms/locker rooms (especially locker rooms) related to their birth gender and stop making everyone else uncomfortable. No Gavin does not look male. Gavin actually looks like a couple lesbians I've known over the years (not all lesbians just a couple specific ones). They actually participated in some stereotypical male activities, though, (sports) so they weren't as big. I'm not sure what is meant by Gavin living as a male, actually.

S Starz

You go Gavin! Stand up for what's right! Discrimination is wrong in any context!


Are ACLU counsel and staff on this case aware of:

1) The Yale Law students' suit against Connecticut's Building Code management agency, alleging gender bias in bathroom requirements? One of the problems in that suit is that the snowflake kiddies at Yale use the term "gender" 21 times, whereas the discriminatory provisions in IBC, IPC (plumbing), and ADA use the term "sex" for mandated locker and bathroom discrimination, and never mention "gender". That suit fails to address that disparity of words, meaning, and underlying complex issues.

2) ICC, the NoVA organization that maintains the model International Building Code as adopted in various revision years with or without local amendments as law of most US states, is reportedly considering draft changes for the 2018-2020 editions of IBC that wouldn't erase past traditions of illegal sex segregation, but would change the provisions for how single occupant unisex facilities were counted, in ways that wouldn't penalize Yale or other institutions by refusing to count non-sex signage specific bathrooms as part of required occupancy based facilities?

3) The impact of the American Nutcase Shrinks' Association on all this, including news media misrepresentations in stories about the related North Carolina state bathroom law? In the 5th Edition Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, they adopted standards to extort the fraud of misusing "gender" for (biological) "sex", corrupting a wide range of journal publications, and university fraud imposed on students, not easily undone as seen when media report on law with specific wording, and presumptuously tamper with the facts in reports. A Psychologist friend explained that change was intended to "be more neutral language", whereas it's really a form of professional bias and fraud, that assumes sick patients or neurotic doctors are normal and get to redefine biology and society for others, just because lots of immature humans never GTFU over sexuality issues. The since released 6th Edition of that Manual rolls back that change and undoes the fraud not present in the 4th Edition or previous, leaving behind a lot of so-called professionals who need some education as to ending their malicious or unwitting proliferation of that fraud. (I advocate that blatant contempt for civil rights often displayed by many clinical and ivory tower social sciences types, amounts to malice, usually in the form of bias to treat institutionalized bigotry as a norm and social adaptation to that healthy and desirable.)

4) Imagine if the demands of that badly mangled Yale snowflake lawyer wannabes suit were taken seriously and court ordered, using equally bad language as in that suit. Since gender is arbitrary, subjective, fluid, and often personal, a requirement to have at least one bathroom for EVERY gender in every building could potentially require more bathrooms than there were users of the facility over the course of a year or more. That could lead to ahem, "interesting" signage requirements, particularly when international symbols and braille counterparts are mandated, but such gender constructs lack the specificity to enable that. That leads into privacy violation problems, and void for vagueness issues of massive scale, and a whole theater of the absurd, that legal process is wont to trigger, but obligated to avoid. The USA could be ridiculed around the world for being the nation of 25 billion bathrooms, for 330 million crazy monkeys with car keys competing as the worst abusers via global warming (per capita energy use here) on the planet. Then consider XXY's, the only tri-gened sex mix that usually survives long enough for these issues to matter.

5) It's worth inspecting current catalogs of companies that make signage for public and public accommodation buildings, and their efforts to define a new "Inclusive" or "Everyone" category of uni-/poly-/pan-sexual bathroom designations, with symbols, words, and braille.

6) In some regions, water usage is an extreme problem, and sun toilets or no-flush urinals are a major need. How can Codes integrate no-flush urinals into non-sex segregated bathrooms?

Relevant Yale legal and press documents:

Most major Building Codes or their year-revision model base are now available freely on, if not also state legal sites, since publishers lost Copyright suits to keep them hostage to high purchase fees, whenever they're incorporated and are made part of public law we're all entitled to freely share.

Note how the terms "gender" and "gender neutral" appear in some of those private and state legal documents, in part due to that recent historic APA 5th Ed. fraud issue, and in part because gender presentation is often how sex is outwardly judged. It's obvious idiot savants with grad degrees often fail to recognize their own intrinsic biases. There's a need for cleaning up academic, media, and professional artifacts of that APA driven fraud, but also one to somehow reconcile the difficult issues of law where gender identity is both a privacy issue even in public, and part of religious and speech plus non-discrimination rights even if observers dislike what they see, or think they see. How might that relate to laws about sex neutrality or discrimination in legally and ethically legitimate ways, that are functional and not confusing to those impacted?

Connecticut has more extensive state statutory and regulatory civil rights protections (above and beyond Federal) than Virginia with its hostile legislature. Since Virginia adopted statewide building codes (finally) last decade, and BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI merged and joined in a single IBC model Code nationally, most states finally share the base for these state incorporated laws, across the spectrum of more and less progressive states as to protection of core civil rights.

The issues involved do not exist in isolation, and do overlap as to theory and practice challenges. The Grimm case and that Yale case both need to address language use, signage, Code facility formulas, and carrot and stick remedies in case of violations, in order to be effective protecting citizen rights. Absent reconciling model Building (plumbing, ADA, etc) Codes with civil rights cases, there might be a problematic conflict of law and process.

Building Codes traditionally allow a large degree of grandfathering, while in civil rights law, justice delayed is justice denied, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, such that grandfathering is antithetical to the core intent of law. How can that divergence in theory and practice be handled? There may be a need for a tiered standard of transition, with immediate major changes for new construction, and mitigation options for existing ones.

Could Qui Tam be used to "motivate" scofflaw institutions receiving Federal funds, be they medical, academic, or contractor businesses, or states? If it's fraud to take funding while violating contract conditions mandating civil rights law adherence, and such suits could be applied, scofflaws could owe treble their entire Federal funding for several years back, and be cut off into the future, if at least One Dollar of such fraud could be proven. In some cases, that might also result in a whistleblower's bonus much higher than the prevailing party legal fee elimination the Bush SCOTUS mostly cut off in GOP platform promises, delivered via Sole v Wynner (a nude beach political protest performance artist in Florida), rather than statutory repeal as the GOP campaigned.

I agree with a previous commenter that "this" is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that issues based on the 14th Amendment from 1868 weren't resolved honestly long ago. I'm not sure what the Goddess Kali has to do with all this though, patron of the Service of Mankind church and their BDSM religious rituals. So many gods to choose from, that humans have created and played with over time. Maybe Virginia is overdue to disbar and remove judges who still use deity oaths in our courts, or post McCarthy era deity pledges on walls of courthouses, even when newly built ones as in Northumberland County?


I agree with author, thanks


Don't agree. TRANSGENDERISM is a motherfucking CULT you stupid bleeding hearts. I'm canceling my membership now that I know you support the transing of children which is child abuse and a human rights violation. Read the Nuremburg codes for crying out loud. The PC fascist authoritarianism of transgender ideology is anti-woman and anti-homosexual. You are supporting the WRONG people. Trans rights wipe out Women's rights. Sorry, you don't take away the rights of women to give rights to mostly men in "womanface" performing femininity. Gender stereotypes are what woman's liberation has been fighting since the 1970's. Right thinking people want to eliminate the prison of gender stereotypes, not celebrate them by increasing the prison cells by painting them all the colors of the rainbow. Stop buying into this new form of fascism.


If I were a "fascist" I would ban the use of the term "Fascist" because the constant misuse of the term by both sides of the political spectrum drives me up the wall.


Stay Informed