Illinois federal judge: Allowing transgender student in girls' restroom does not violate Equal Protection Clause or Title IX

A federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a female student who claimed that allowing a transgender student to use the girls' restroom violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

The case, F.F. v. Valley View Community Unit School District 365U, was decided Monday by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Background

The plaintiff, an 18-year-old female student formerly enrolled at Bolingbrook High School, alleged that on November 4, 2024, she entered a girls' multi-use restroom and, after exiting a stall, observed a transgender student she recognized standing nearby. The plaintiff described the transgender student as dressed in "male-typical clothing … with no visible indication of female identity."

The plaintiff stated she feared the student could have seen her undergarments or exposed body through gaps in the stall. She did not allege that the student actually saw or attempted to see her, but claimed she experienced "intense feelings of anxiety, discomfort, and shame" from the possibility of exposure.

School's Response

On November 7, 2024, the plaintiff's father reported the incident to the school principal, Dr. Pascavage. The principal explained that the transgender student had been granted access to the girls' restroom under an Individual Development Plan outlining gender-identity accommodations.

To address the plaintiff's privacy concerns, the school offered her access to single-use staff restrooms. The principal further explained that the school was following guidance from the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR), which states:

• Restroom access may not be restricted based on a student's physical anatomy or chromosomal sex
• Students must be permitted to use facilities that align with their gender-related identity without providing documentation
• The discomfort or privacy concerns of others are not valid reasons to deny facility access based on gender-related identity
• Individuals seeking more privacy should be accommodated with a more private option upon request

Subsequent Events

During continued communication in November 2024, the plaintiff's father expressed frustration with the school's policy and rejected the offer of alternative facilities.

At a December 9, 2024, school board meeting, the plaintiff's father raised concerns about gaps in restroom stall doors. In response, between December 20, 2024, and January 6, 2025, the school installed rubber strips and opaque material on the toilet stalls in the girls' restrooms.

In January 2025, the plaintiff attempted to use a staff restroom in the school library but was allegedly denied access by the librarian. She then began using other girls' restrooms located far from the one where the initial incident occurred, and only during class hours. She claimed this caused her to lose classroom instruction time, disrupted her routine, and diminished her sense of safety at the school.

Court's Decision

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims, finding that the school's policy and actions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.