Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

16-3522 Ashton Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, et al

By: Derek Hawkins//June 1, 2017//

16-3522 Ashton Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, et al

By: Derek Hawkins//June 1, 2017//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Ashton Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, et al

Case No.: 16-3522

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and WILLIAMS, Cir cuit Judges

Ashton (“Ash”) Whitaker is a 17 year‐old high school senior who has what would seem like a simple request: to use the boys’ restroom while at school. However, the Defendants, the Kenosha Unified School District and its superintendent, Sue Savaglio, (the “School District”) believe that the request is not so simple because Ash1 is a transgender boy. The School District did not permit Ash to enter the boys’ restroom because, it believed, that his mere presence would invade the privacy rights of his male class‐ mates. Ash brought suit, alleging that the School District’s un‐ written bathroom policy2 violates Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In addition to filing suit, Ash, beginning his senior year, moved for preliminary injunctive relief, seeking an order granting him access to the boys’ restrooms. He asserted that the denial of access to the boys’ bathroom was causing him harm, as his attempts to avoid using the bathroom exacerbated his vasovagal syncope, a condition that renders Ash susceptible to fainting and/or seizures if dehydrated. He also contended that the denial caused him educational and emotional harm, including suicidal ideations. The School District vigorously objected and moved to dismiss Ash’s claims, arguing that Ash could neither state a claim under Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause. The district court denied the motion to dismiss and granted Ash’s preliminary injunction motion.   On appeal, the School District argues that we should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss. However, we decline this invitation, as the two orders were not inextricably intertwined and we can review the grant of the preliminary injunction without reviewing the denial of the motion to dismiss

Motion to assert pendant appellant jurisdiction denied

Affirmed

Full Text


Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests