Jury verdict reinstated for student seeking access to boys’ bathroom

A student who was not permitted to use the boys’ bathroom even after he provided a birth certificate recognizing his sex as male sufficiently demonstrated that he was discriminated against based on sex, a Court of Appeals panel in the Western District of Missouri ruled on June 4, reversing an order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reinstating a jury verdict in favor of the student against the school district.

R.M.A. is a female to male transgender teenager who was born as a female and transitioned to living as a male in 2009 while attending fourth grade in the Blue Springs R-IV School District.

In 2010, R.M.A.’s name was changed to a name traditionally given to males and his birth certificate was amended in December 2014 to reflect his present legal name and amend his sex designation from female to male.

R.M.A. and his mother expressed an interest in R.M.A. having access to the boys’ locker room and restrooms while he attended eighth grade, but the school district refused to give that access. R.M.A. and his mother again requested access when he began attending high school in 2014, and the district again denied access, even though R.M.A. had been issued an amended birth certificate recognizing his sex as male.

The school district offered varying explanations for denying R.M.A. access to the same accommodations as other boys, including that R.M.A. had female genitalia, although the district did not actually determine R.M.A.’s genitalia and does not otherwise inquire as to the genitalia of other male students.

A member of the school board and the principal testified that the district classified students for bathroom and locker room access based on the sex designation in birth certificates.

R.M.A. filed suit against the school district, which moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the Missouri Human Rights Act doesn’t extend its protections to claims based on gender identity.

A trial court dismissed the case but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed in 2019. A trial was held in December 2021 and returned a verdict in R.M.A.’s favor, awarding compensatory damages of $175,000 and punitive damages of $4 million.

The district filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial. The trial court entered JNOV in favor of the district, finding the verdict was “against the weight of the evidence in that the sole and uncontradicted evidence at trial was the school district made its decisions based on genitalia, not sex.”

R.M.A. appealed and the court reversed.

The trial court erred in granting JNOV because R.M.A. made a submissible case that he was subjected to public accommodation discrimination and that his sex was a contributing factor for such treatment, Judge Anthony Rex Gabbert wrote for the unanimous panel.

The court rejected the school district’s argument that JNOV was appropriate because R.M.A.is female and not male.

“[T]he Missouri Supreme Court plainly held that the term ‘sex’ as used in section 213.065 is not limited to biological sex alone, and is not ‘determined [solely] by the genitalia [an individual] displayed at birth,’” the court wrote. “The Court also recognized that an individual’s ‘sex,’ for purposes of section 213.065, could be reflected in amendments to the individual’s birth certificate.”

R.M.A. was issued an amended birth certificate in December 2014, which states that he is male.

“Under the Supreme Court’s decision in the prior appeal, that amended birth certificate alone establishes a sufficient basis for the jury to have concluded that R.M.A. is male,” the court said. “Moreover, by holding that R.M.A.’s petition was sufficient to state a claim, when that petition identified R.M.A. as an individual who was born female but transitioned to male, the Missouri Supreme Court necessarily held that R.M.A. could be considered to be of the male sex for purposes of an MHRA claim on the facts of this case.”

In addition, a professor of pediatrics and an attending physician in pediatric endocrinology at Children’s Mercy Hospital testified that R.M.A. is male.

R.M.A. also presented sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the school district denied him access to the boys’ locker room because of his sex, the court found.

At trial, R.M.A. presented a theory of sex stereotyping, telling the jury that he was discriminated against because he was the wrong kind of male. The school district argued in its motion for JNOV that it denied R.M.A. full use of the boys’ locker room and restrooms because R.M.A. had female genitalia.

“As discussed, R.M.A. is male,” the court said. “Thus, School District essentially admits it discriminated against R.M.A. because he did not fit their idea of what a male is. … This is no different than discriminating against a male because he is not tall enough or muscular enough. School District discriminated against R.M.A. because his male sex did not fit their preconceived notions of what the male sex should be. This is discrimination based on R.M.A.’s male sex.”

R.M.A. further established that the school district acted with reckless disregard of his rights, presenting evidence that the district had an unwritten policy of using birth certificates to determine sex, yet refused to honor his birth certificate even when his mother tried repeatedly to work with the district for years, with the superintendent and the school board refusing to meet with her.

The court reversed the entry of JNOV and remanded with instructions to enter the jury verdict and determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees and court costs requested by R.M.A.

Madeline Johnson, a Platte City attorney who represented R.M.A. and his mother, said she was hopeful the Court of Appeals decision would be the end of a decade of litigation.

“The decision is further validation that the Missouri Human Rights Act protects LGBTQ+ Missourians and puts an end to attempts to engage in mental gymnastics to find a way around the law,” she said. “We are very happy the law is progressing in the right direction.”

Kansas City attorney Steven F. Coronado of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler and Smith, who represented the school district, did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District, WD85778.

RELATED:

Judge tosses $4.2M award for transgender student

Transgender student wins on claim of discrimination