LGBTQ Rights Under the Legal Microsope
Part Two of a Two-Part Article" /> LGBTQ Rights Under the Legal Microsope
Part Two of a Two-Part Article" />
Follow Us

Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Civil Rights Education Law Employment Law Litigation

The Meaning of 'Sex'
LGBTQ Rights Under the Legal Microsope
Part Two of a Two-Part Article

The Supreme Court's decision in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. is likely to have a significant impact on federal workplace discrimination laws, despite the fact that the case does not implicate the employment relationship, or involve employment law.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Last month, we discussed the fact that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender student in Virginia, and his attempt to use men’s restrooms and locker-room facilities in his school district. The critical issue in the case involves the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) interpretation of a federal prohibition on sex discrimination in schools. The DOE concluded that the term “sex” includes gender identity and sexual orientation, initially permitting Grimm the access he desired. After his county school board implemented a policy in direct contrast to the DOE’s interpretation, Grimm filed suit in district court, challenging the policy. The case was dismissed, and subsequently appealed by Grimm to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), the Fourth Circuit, giving deference to the DOE’s interpretation of federal regulations, overruled the district court’s dismissal, and upheld the DOE’s interpretation of the meaning of “sex.”

To continue reading,
become a free ALM digital reader

Benefits include:

*May exclude premium content

Read These Next