From F.F. v. Valley View Comm. Unit School Dist. 365U, decided Monday by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman (N.D. Ill.):
Plaintiff is an 18-year-old female who was previously enrolled at Bolingbrook High School. On November 4, 2024, at around 10:00 a.m., Plaintiff entered a girls' multi-use restroom labeled "girls' bathroom." After using and exiting a stall, Plaintiff observed a transgender student, who she was familiar with, dressed in "male-typical clothing … with no visible indication of female identity," standing in close proximity to her stall. Plaintiff feared that the student could have seen her undergarments or her exposed body through small spaces on either side or under the stall door. While Plaintiff does not allege any facts indicating the student actually saw or tried to see her exposed body, Plaintiff claims to have been "triggered" and to have experienced "intense feelings of anxiety, discomfort, and shame" from the mere possibility of being exposed.
On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff described the incident to her father, Mr. Fisher. The following day, Mr. Fisher sent a text message to the School's principal, Dr. Pascavage, to report the incident and raise concerns about Plaintiff's privacy. Dr. Pascavage responded that the transgender female student had been granted access to the girls' restroom pursuant to an Individual Development Plan, or formal plan outlining the student's gender-identity accommodations. To address Plaintiff's privacy concerns, Dr. Pascavage offered Plaintiff access to single-use staff restrooms.
During an in-person meeting with Mr. Fisher on November 12, 2024, Dr. Pascavage further elaborated that the School followed Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") guidance, titled "Guidance on Protection of Students in Illinois: A Non-Regulatory Guidance Relating to Protection of Transgender, Nonbinary, and Gender Nonconforming Students." The 2021 IDHR publication provides guidelines on complying with the Illinois Human Rights Act, "in the context of a school setting, with specific focus on how the IHRA protects the rights of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming individuals." In relevant part, the publication states:
Use of restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms may not be restricted based upon a student's physical anatomy or chromosomal sex. A student must be permitted to access restrooms or bathrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms that align with their gender-related identity and without having to provide documentation or other proof of gender.
Under the Act, the discomfort or privacy concerns of other students, teachers, or parents are not valid reasons to deny or limit the full and equal use of facilities based on a student's gender-related identity. Instead, any student, teacher or other individual seeking more privacy should be accommodated by providing that individual a more private option upon their request, if possible. The prejudices of others are part of what the [Act] was meant to prevent. [T]here is no right that insulates a student from coming in contact with others who are different.
During continued communication with Dr. Pascavage throughout November 2024, Mr. Fisher expressed frustration with the School's policy and complained that the School's offer to allow Plaintiff's use of an alternative facility would not sufficiently address the issue.
On December 9, 2024, at a public meeting of the School District's Board of Education, Mr. Fisher raised the issue of transgender students having access to the girls' restrooms, drawing attention to gaps on the sides and below stall doors that render the interior of the stall partially visible from outside. In response to Mr. Fisher's concerns about the stall design, between December 20, 2024, and January 6, 2025, the School installed rubber strips and other opaque material on the toilet stalls in the girls' restrooms.
In January 2025, Plaintiff attempted to use the staff restroom in the School's library. Plaintiff alleges, however, that she was denied access to the staff restroom by the librarian. Discouraged, Plaintiff took deliberate care to use other girls' restrooms in the School as far away as possible from the one where the initial "incident" occurred. Further, Plaintiff used these girls' restrooms only during class hours, which she alleges, led to her losing classroom instruction time, disrupted her routine, heightened her unease, and diminished her sense of safety at the School. She further claims that this fear caused her to skip restroom visits, which Plaintiff states was "especially unsettling" during the days she had her period.
Plaintiff does not allege, however, any facts indicating that the transgender girl in question made any efforts to view her through the stall or otherwise invade her privacy. Plaintiff also does not allege that she confirmed or investigated the gender identity of any other girls she encountered in the restroom outside of the transgender girl from the initial "incident." …
