The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, this week affirmed the dismissal of a complaint by a female identified by the court only as R.M.A.
She had sued the Blue Springs R-IV School District and its board of education because, after adopting a male name and changing the gender reference on her birth certificate, she still was being required by the school district to use facilities designated for females.
Judges Victor Howard and Cynthia Martin made up a majority of the three-judge panel that affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the case.
The girl alleged her exclusion from the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms subjected her “to different requirements for accessing the services of the school” due to gender.
However, the school argued that the Missouri Human Rights Act, under which the claim was filed, “does not extend its protection to claims based on gender identity.”
The judges found that state law “does not prohibit discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of ‘gender-related traits.’”
“Instead, section 213.065.2 prohibits discrimination in public accommodation ‘on the grounds of … sex.’ In fact, R.M.A.’s petition did not allege that he was discriminated against in public accommodation on the basis of a ‘gender-related trait.’ R.M.A.’s petition alleges only that he was discriminated against in public accommodation on the basis of ‘sex.’”
Further, the court said, the state’s precedents are clear.
“In enacting the MHRA, the general assembly did not intend ‘discrimination on the grounds of sex’ to include the deprivation of a public accommodation – the boys’ restroom and locker room – because a person is transitioning from female to male. Our judicial role does not permit us to vary settled legislative intent based on evolving social sensitivities.
“Instead, we are bound by the state of the law as it currently exists.”
Many other cases in recent years, however, have gone the other way.
In one recent case on which WND reported, a Pennsylvania school district was sued for deliberately allowing a girl into a boys’ locker room, causing embarrassment and humiliation for a boy already changing his clothes there.
The district told the boy to get used to it or use another facility.
Obama issued an executive order requiring that public schools give access to restrooms and shower facilities according to “gender identity.” The administration redefined the term “sex” as used in various 1970s laws to include people who perceive themselves to be of the opposite sex.
President Trump, in one of his earliest executive actions, reversed the order.
In the Pennsylvania case, the lawsuit against the school for doing exactly what the Missouri court refused to order, said: “Minors have a fundamental right to be free from state compelled risk of exposure of their bodies, or their intimate activities. [Joel] Doe was subjected to harassment because the practice allows biological females to use the boys’ locker rooms and restrooms, which creates a harassing hostile environment specifically on the basis of the sex of the persons involved.
“Differences in anatomy … do not disappear when biological females self-identify as males, and vice versa.”
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was an opponent of Obama’s order to schools, filing a lawsuit along with several other states against the federal government and urging superintendents in his state to defy the order, promising his support.
The lawsuit challenged the executive branch’s legal authority to withhold federal funding if transgenders aren’t allowed to choose whichever bathroom they want to use.
Critics said opening boys’ bathrooms to girls and girls’ bathrooms to boys would create havoc, invading students’ and staffers’ privacy and putting their safety at risk.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/court-shocker-girl-must-use-girls-locker-room/#fGly5hcGIMByjLQw.99