Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

972 F.3d 586 (2020)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
972 F.3d 586 (2020)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Play video

Facts

Gavin Grimm (plaintiff), a female-to-male transgender boy, attended Gloucester High School, a federally funded public school. Grimm was enrolled as a female student. Grimm was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in freshman year and, on the advice of his psychologist, started living as a boy and using men’s bathrooms when out in public. At the beginning of Grimm’s sophomore year, Grimm informed the school that he was transgender and received permission to use the nurse’s single-stall bathroom. However, because using the nurse’s bathroom caused Grimm to feel stigmatized and shamed, Grimm subsequently received permission to use the regular boys’ multi-stall bathroom. Grimm used the boys’ bathroom for seven weeks without incident. However, after the Gloucester County School Board (the board) (defendant) learned about Grimm’s bathroom usage, the board enacted a policy that penalized students for using a bathroom that did not match their biological sex. The board also established separate unisex bathrooms. The board cited the need to protect student privacy as the justification for the new policy. Grimm suffered physical, psychological, and social harm because of the new policy, including suicidal ideations. At the same time the new bathroom policy went into effect, Grimm started hormone therapy and began to appear more physically masculine. During Grimm’s senior year, he underwent gender-affirming surgery and legally changed his sex under state law. Grimm asked the school to update his records to match, but the board refused. Grimm sued the board under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that the board’s bathroom policy and refusal to update his school records was impermissible sex-based discrimination targeting Grimm’s transgender status. The district court granted Grimm summary judgment. The board appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Floyd, J.)

Dissent (Niemeyer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership