RALEIGH – Hours after a Virginia federal court issued a decision that overturns an injunction against a transgender Virginia teen’s bathroom access lawsuit, Senate Leader Phil Berger issued a statement saying that H.B.2 was intended to stop the “insanity.”
“People need to wake up,” said Berger. “Roy Cooper, Barack Obama and two unelected federal judges are on the verge of completing their radical social reengineering of our society by forcing middle school-aged girls to share school locker rooms with boys. House Bill 2 was our effort to stop this insanity, and I hope this proves the bathroom safety bill has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with protecting women’s privacy and keeping men out of girls’ bathrooms.”
The comment follows the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier today that sixteen year old Gavin Grimm’s title IX claim lawsuit against the Glouchester School District should proceed to trial. Grimm sued the school board in September saying that the high school should let him use locker and restroom facilities designated for males, even though he is anatomically a female.
The school did permit Grimm to use the male facilities last year until parents objected. When the conflict reached the county school board level in July, members heard from speakers and then voted 6-1 to enforce sex-specific policies in multi-user bathrooms and locker rooms.
The decision of the federal three judge panel overturned a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against allowing Grimm access to the male facilities. The decision remands the case, allowing Grimm’s attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union to proceed with their claim that the policy violates federal discrimination law under Title IX, which says that schools receiving federal funding are prohibited from discrimination based on sex.
The ACLU of North Carolina, claims that the decision affirms their assertion that enforcing single-sex restrooms puts North Carolina’s Title IX funding in jeopardy. However, Tuesday’s decision does not rule on the legality of sex-specific multi-stalled accommodations, but does say that the lower court should hear the case.