Jane Doe Vs Vicksburg Schools Filing

Case 1:23-cv-00901 ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JANE DOES #1-#4, minors, by and through

their next friend and Guardians JOHN DOES
#1-#4 Case No. ~~~~~~~~-
Plaintiffs
v.
VICKSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOLS;

KEEVIN O'NEILL in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Vicksburg Community
CLAIM OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
Schools; STEVE GOSS in his official capacity
as Assistant Superintendent of Vicksburg and VIOLATION OF TITLE IX
Community Schools; ADAM BRUSH in his
official capacity as Principal of Vicksburg
High School; MATTHEW HAWKINS in his
official capacity as Vice Principal of JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Vicksburg High School;
Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
NOW COME Plaintiffs, JANE DOES #1-#4, minors by and through their Guardians JOHN
DOES and their attorneys, DePERNO LAW OFFICE, PLLC, and for their Complaint against
VICKSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOLS; KEEVIN O'NEILL in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Vicksburg Community Schools; STEVE GOSS in his official capacity as
Assistant Superintendent of Vicksburg Community Schools; ADAM BRUSH in his official
capacity as Principal of Vicksburg High School; MATTHEW HAWKINS in his official capacity
as Vice Principal of Vicksburg High School; hereby allege and complain as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case is about the intentional violation of children's fundamental right to bodily
privacy contrary to constitutional and statutory principles, including the Fourteenth Amendment,
Case 1:23-cv-00901 ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 37
Title IX, invasion of seclusion, and the Michigan's Revised School Code being MCL 380. l et seq,
which requires separate facilities based on sex.
2. The importance of privacy has long been considered central to our country's notions
of freedom: a measure of personal isolation and personal control over the conditions of privacy's
abandonment is of the very essence of personal freedom and dignity.
3. It was recently discovered that, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, their parents, and other
students and parents at Vicksburg High School, a public high school in the Vicksburg Community
Schools ("Vicksburg High School"), the Defendants have secretly allowed biological males to use
the girls' multi-user private restrooms and locker rooms.
4. After Plaintiffs informed Defendants that there was a boy in their restrooms
exposing himself, Defendants stated that "the law was settled" that students who mentally identify
themselves with the opposite sex could choose the locker room and restroom to use, and physical
sex did not matter. Defendants stated "it's fine." Defendants told Plaintiffs they needed to "tolerate
it" and make it as "natural" as they possibly could. Defendants told Plaintiffs that they should try
not to embarrass the biological male student. Instead, they should "look away" and not "bully" the
biological male.
5. Although Plaintiffs are hard-working, high achieving students, the school has
discriminated against them and violated their privacy rights by allowing male students to dress as
girls and use the girls' multi-user private restrooms and locker rooms. In some situations, it has
caused Plaintiffs and other biologically female students to be fearful, to stay away from the girls'
restrooms and locker rooms, to hold their urine the entire day, and on at least one occasion cause
one of the Plaintiffs significant embarrassments during her menstrual cycle because she was fearful
of using the girls' restroom.
2
6. By forcing Plaintiffs and other female students to endure this type of discrimination
and harassment and by failing to provide a safe educational environment for the Plaintiffs and
other female students, the School District intentionally and purposefully caused Plaintiffs' privacy
to be violated. Indeed, the School District did not inform Plaintiffs or their Guardians, before they
implemented this policy that they were permitting students of the male sex to enter locker rooms
and restrooms of students of the female sex in order to use the toilet and fully expose themselves.
7. The School District had not informed Plaintiffs or their Guardians that despite the
words on locker room and restroom doors, they would no longer protect Plaintiffs' expectation of
privacy from viewing or being viewed by members of the opposite sex when they are present in
multi-user private facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms.
8. The actions and policies violate Plaintiffs' fundamental right to bodily privacy, Title
IX, intrusion upon seclusion, as well as Michigan law requiring separate facilities at our public
schools. Defendants also breached their fiduciary duties.
9. No student should be forced to use multi-user private facilities at school, like locker
rooms and restrooms, with students of the opposite sex. No school district should violate its
students' constitutional and statutory rights, especially when it means abandoning a common-sense
practice that long protected every student's privacy and access to education. Yet the Defendants
have taken precisely these actions in this case.
10. Plaintiffs now seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants purposefully violated
Plaintiffs' privacy rights and further attempted to harass and coerce the minor Plaintiffs into further
privacy violations. Plaintiffs asks this Court to declare the Defendants' policy and actions unlawful,
and order the other relief requested herein.
3
JURISDICTION and VENUE
11. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 et seq. (the "Civil Rights Act") to redress
the deprivation ofrights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. ("Title IX"), the Michigan Constitution and common law, and the
Revised School Code.
12. This Court also has original jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section § 1331 (as this action involves a federal question and the laws of the United
States) and 28 U.S.C. Section § 1343 (as this action involves the right to recover damages for
injury and the deprivation ofrights and privileges.) See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, and 1367.
13. Jurisdiction is also conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4), 28
U.S.C. § 2201 & 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and 1988, this being an action for declaratory
judgment and equitable relief authorized by law to redress deprivations and violations under color
of law of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and
Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended. See also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
14. The Court has jurisdiction to award nominal and compensatory damages under 28
U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4).
15. The Court has jurisdiction to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 28
U.S.C. § 2412, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
16. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over
Plaintiffs' state-law claims that are related to, and form part of, the same case or controversy. It is
appropriate that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because
they involve the same parties and operative facts as the federal claims. Therefore, the Court's
4
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction will further economy, convenience, and fairness to the
parties.
17. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e), because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to all claims occurred in this district where
the District Defendant is located.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled in
Michigan.
19. Plaintiffs request trial by jury, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
20. Plaintiffs and their Guardians are citizens of the United States and residents of
Michigan.
21. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 is a minor girl. She is a graduated student who was a senior
last year at Vicksburg High School. Because Jane Doe #1 is a minor, this action is brought on her
behalf by and through her legal Guardians.
22. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is a minor girl. She is a student who will begin her senior year
at Vicksburg High School at the end of August of 2023. Because Jane Doe #2 is a minor, this
action is brought on her behalf by and through her legal Guardians.
23. Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 is a minor girl. She is a student who began her junior year at
Vicksburg High School at the end of August of2023. Because Jane Doe #3 is a minor, this action
is brought on her behalf by and through her legal Guardians.
5
24. Plaintiff Jane Doe #4 is a minor girl. She is a student who began her sophomore
year at Vicksburg High School at the end of August of2023. Because Jane Doe #4 is a minor, this
action is brought on her behalf by and through her legal Guardians.
B. Defendant Vicksburg Community Schools
25. Vicksburg Community Schools (the "School District") is organized under the laws
of the State of Michigan.
26. The School District includes public educational institutions that provide students a
kindergarten through 12th-grade education.
27. The School District and its schools receive federal funds and so are subject to the
requirement s of Title IX.
28. The School District schools include three K-5 elementary schools, one 6-8 middle
school, a virtual academy, 1 a "pathway" high school,2 and one senior high school serving grades
9, 10, 11 and 12.
29. The School District is governed by The Board of Education (the "School Board"),
a seven-member elected body that sets policy for the School District and delegates responsibility
for the administration of the School District to its Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent,
who oversee a number of district-level administrators.
30. The School District is responsible for the enforcement of policies through its
Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, administrators, teachers, attorneys, and other
employees.
1 The Virtual Academy is an online school offered by Kalamazoo RESA for students in grades 6-
8 as an alternative to a traditional middle school.
2 Vicksburg's Pathways High School has 99 students in grades 9-12
6
C. Defendant Superintendent Keevin O'Neill
31. Defendant O'Neill is the current Superintendent of The School District and is sued
in his official capacity. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Superintendent O'Neill
acted within the scope of his employment as an employee, agent, and representative of the School
Board. In such capacity, he implemented a new policy in which student( s) of one sex are permitted
to enter and use restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities designated for members of the
opposite sex. Upon information and belief, he did so with the consent, knowledge, or ratification
of the School Board; under the School Board's authority, control, and supervision; and with the
actual or apparent authority of the School Board. Upon information and belief, Superintendent
O'Neill has final policymaking authority for The School District in circumstances not otherwise
provided for in the School District Bylaws and Policies.
D. Defendant Assistant Superintendent Steve Goss
32. Defendant Goss is the current Assistant Superintendent of The School District and
is sued in his official capacity. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Assistant
Superintendent Goss acted within the scope of his employment as an employee, agent, and
representative of the School Board. In such capacity, he implemented a new policy in which
student( s) of one sex are permitted to enter and use restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities
designated for members of the opposite sex. Upon information and belief, he did so with the
consent, knowledge, or ratification of the School Board; under the School Board's authority,
control, and supervision; and with the actual or apparent authority of the School Board. Upon
information and belief, Assistant Superintendent Goss has final policymaking authority for The
School District in circumstances not otherwise provided for in the School District Bylaws and
Policies.
7
E. Defendant Principal Adam Brush
33. Defendant Brush is the current Principal of Vicksburg Community High School
and is sued in his official capacity. In such capacity, he implemented a new policy in which
student( s) of one sex are permitted to enter and use restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities
designated for members of the opposite sex. Upon information and belief, he did so with the
consent, knowledge, or ratification of the School Board; under the School Board's authority,
information and belief, Principal Brush has final policymaking authority for Vicksburg
Community High School with respect to the day-to-day enforcement of the School District's
policies, including the newly adopted policy or practice permitting students of one sex to enter and
use private facilities like restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities with members of the
opposite sex.
F. Defendant Vice Principal Matthew Hawkins
34. Defendant Hawkins is the current Vice Principal of Vicksburg Community High
School and is sued in his official capacity. In such capacity, he implemented a new policy in which
student(s) of one sex are officially authorized to enter and use restrooms, locker rooms, and shower
facilities designated for members of the opposite sex. Upon information and belief, he did so with
the consent, knowledge, or ratification of the School Board; under the School Board's authority,
information and belief, Vice Principal Hawkins has final policymaking authority for Vicksburg
Community High School with respect to the day-to-day enforcement of the School District's
policies, including the newly adopted policy or practice permitting students of one sex to enter and
8
use private facilities like restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities with members of the
opposite sex.
FACTS
35. Plaintiffs are female students who are or were properly and legally enrolled at
Vicksburg Community High School.
36. Vicksburg Community High School has 8 male restrooms and locker rooms and 8
female restrooms and locker rooms.
37. Prior to and during classes, the female restrooms and locker rooms experience
longer wait periods per restroom stall.
38. These actions were not discovered until Plaintiffs and other students notice and
discovered a biological male standing in the girls' restroom. For some of them, their first instinct
was to flee. When some of the Plaintiffs asked other students about this incident, they discovered
that other students had experienced the same encounter.
39. These encounters caused Plaintiffs and other biological girls to be fearful of using
the multi-user private girls' restrooms and locker rooms on their own. It forced them to travel
together, to search the restrooms and lockers rooms before using them, and to otherwise live in
fear. For some Plaintiffs and others, they refused to use the girls' restrooms and locker rooms,
instead holding their urine the entire school day. This not only affected their comfort level while
at school but has also affected their attitudes.
40. Some Plaintiffs and other girls did not understand if the biological male was in the
girls' restroom and locker rooms in order to spy on them, take pictures, threaten them, or harm
them.
9
41. On one occasion, the biological male using the girls' restroom "stared down" one
of the Plaintiffs in a threatening manner, as if Plaintiff was the one in the wrong restroom, causing
Plaintiff to fear for her safety.
42. Plaintiffs have discussed this situation with Defendants who responded that "there
is nothing they could do" or that "the law is settled" and that they will continue to allow biological
males to use the girls' multi-user private restrooms and locker rooms.
43. Defendants have also stated that "because of privacy concerns" they will not
disclose to Plaintiffs, other students, or parents how many biological males have in the past or are
currently dressing like girls and using the girls' multi-user private restrooms and locker rooms.
44. Michigan state law requires all students in Vicksburg Community High School to
take 1 credit in a physical education ("PE") course. Therefore, PE is a mandatory course at the
School District and is a requirement to graduate.
45. It is mandatory that students m PE class change into clothing appropriate for PE
class. See MCL 380.1502.
46. The PE locker rooms have signs which indicate they are either for girls or for boys.
Plaintiffs have always used the girls' locker room and restrooms because their sex is female.
However, Defendants now permit boys to use the girls' locker room, strip naked, and expose
themselves to girls.
47. Plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation that they would have privacy in the locker
rooms and restrooms in the school from viewing members of the opposite sex or from being viewed
by members of the opposite sex.
10
48. Plaintiffs have, at times, been using the restroom when they have suddenly realized
a male student using the restroom, fully exposed. Plaintiffs understand that the same could happen
in the locker rooms.
49. Plaintiffs have experienced immediate confusion, embarrassment, humiliation, and
loss of dignity upon finding themselves in this circumstance where a male student was exposing
himself to female students.
50. Plaintiffs, along with various classmates, went to speak to the Principal Brush and
Vice Principal Hawkins to let him know what had happened.
51. Defendants purposefully violated Plaintiffs' privacy rights and further attempted to
harass and coerce the minor Plaintiffs into further privacy violations.
52. No student should be forced to use multi-user private facilities at school, like locker
rooms and restrooms, with students of the opposite sex. No school district should violate its
students' constitutional and statutory rights, especially when it means abandoning a common-sense
practice that long protected every student's privacy and access to education. Yet the Defendants
have taken precisely these actions in this case.
53. The term "sex" refers to one's biological/anatomical status as either male or female.
Sex is fixed at conception, binary, objectively verifiable, and rooted in our human reproductive
nature.
54. The Defendants secretly authorized a male student to have unrestricted access to
enter and use girls' private facilities. Defendants knew that if they publicly announced this plan,
they would be met with considerable opposition.
55. On August 14, 2023, at the School Board meeting, several parents addressed the
School Board. One parent stated:
11
"Ladies and gentlemen of the Vicksburg School Board, I have three daughters that
attend Vicksburg, two at Indian Lake and one in middle school. I come to you today
with a concern that I'd like your clarity on. I've heard stories of biological males in
female restrooms, biological females in a male locker room. I've heard of a
supposed student changing their gender on a weekly or potentially daily basis. I'm
coming to you for clarity. What is the truth? I know you may not be able to speak
about specific students, but what is Vicksburg's restroom and locker room policy?
If we don't have a policy, what is our established practice? Is our practice to allow
biological males into female restrooms and vice versa? Or is it to hold to the historic
established ethic of male and female. My concern is that our daughters and sons
could become victims of non-physical contact sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse can
also include behaviors that do not involve touching or physical contact. These
behaviors can be just as upsetting and emotional harmful to a child as some
touching behaviors. Non-touching behaviors that are considered to be child sexual
abuse include watching a child undress or use the bathroom often without the child's
knowledge or exposing a person's genitals to a child or asking a child to expose
themselves. If this administration's stance is to force our daughters (biological
females) into accepting biological males into their restrooms and locker rooms and
vice-versa, I believe that this is not only immoral and indecent, I believe it meets
standards of child sexual abuse. If this is not true, then please correct me where I'm
wrong. If it is true, then I call on this board to do what is right and protect our
children." 3
56. Another parent stated:
"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. First, I would like to say that I am by no
means comfortable with public speaking so please bear with me ifl seem to fumble
through this. I have three children; a son who graduated from Vicksburg in '22, a
daughter who will be a junior this year and a daughter who will be in first grade.
Yes, we have a big age gap with our kids; we used to joke, saying "we loved
Vicksburg schools so much that we wanted to have a third, just to send them
through the school system." But, our thoughts on that may be changing a bit in light
of some of the situations happening within our district.
A while ago it was brought to our attention as well that there was a male student
using the girl's bathroom. Our daughter approached the principal and vice principal
about this. She was told that the student would be directed to use the single stall
staff bathrooms if he chose to not use the boys bathroom; which this student did
NOT do. Many female students are using the bathroom only one time a day out of
fear of anxiety that a male student could be in the bathroom with them, or to the
point where they just can't hold it any more. As a healthcare professional in
Women's Health, I can tell you it is extremely dangerous for these young girls to
dehydrate themselves to where they are using the restroom ONE TIME during a
seven-hour school day. These girls are being placed at risk for not only dehydration
but urinary tract infections, kidney infection, bowel disfunction; and not to mention
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6 patNmXnII at [18:10- 19:47]
12
the added health risks of only using the bathroom one time a day when it is that
time of the month for a girl!! In addition to the physical health risks this is causing
our girls, think of the mental health risks; anxiety, embarrassment of bleeding
through clothing, fear that a boy is in the stall next to them they need to ask to
"spare a square" or need a pad or tampon. Middle school and high school is hard
enough for our youth without the added pressure that is being placed on these girls
in this type of situation.
Earlier this year a group of concerned parents had a meeting with Superintendent
Keevin O'Neill, Assistant Superintendent Steve Goss and Board President Skip
Knowles regarding this situation. Parents were told there was "nothing the board
could do because transgender students are a 'protected class"'. What about our
daughters' biological rights to privacy and protection? Our daughters are a protected
class and need to be protected. The "solution" that was given to parents was that
the girls had to use the single staff bathroom if they did not feel comfortable with a
boy in their bathroom. How is that right? But, it does seem that we are living in a
world where right is being made out to be wrong and what's wrong is being forced
to be accepted. Biology and truth are being overlooked by subjectiveness of what a
person "thinks" or "feels" of themselves. During that meeting we were told that not
only was this student allowed in the bathroom, but could also use the girl's locker
rooms, without any type of regulation or monitoring of "what was going on" in the
locker rooms. Let me ask this, how is it that my daughter cannot wear a spaghetti
strap tank top, a crop top or a one shoulder tank without being dress coded, but a
particular student can wear very revealing clothing, clothing that shows he is
biologically a boy and can walk around as a hormonal teenage boy in the girls
locker room naked ifhe wanted to, any boy for that matter could, and it is allowed?
Now, we have all heard the tragic stories of what is happening to females across
the nation with transgenders in the bathrooms. During the parent meeting, the
schools "defense" statement was "but nothing has happened, yet". That is the key
word, "yet." Is anyone on the board willing for the "first" victim to be their daughter
or granddaughter? And I say "first" because, how do we know nothing has
happened yet? Multiple girls and parents have been told there's "nothing the school
can do", so why would a young girl seek help from someone who has basically
turned their backs on them? The school has emergency protocols in place for a mass
shooting, "just in case". The school has fire drills, tornado drills, etc., for "just in
case" situations. What is the school board doing to prepare and prevent one of our
girls from being sexually assaulted by a male student in the bathroom or locker
room? We were told that a follow-up parents meeting would take place after the
rest of the board was made aware of the situation. At the last board meeting after
another concerned parent spoke up about this same matter, board member Tina
Forsyth asked what building this was occurring in. So, the additional board
members were NOT notified of this situation like we were told would happen.
Parents have yet to be informed of a follow-up meeting for what will be done
regarding this situation. School will be starting in two weeks and we have no
acceptable resolution to this matter.
13
I am also a proud member of the Facebook group that has grown to over 400
members including students, parents, grandparents, and other concerned
community members who are standing up for what is right. Everyone in the group
shares the same beliefs and standards that it is not safe to have biological boys
sharing the bathroom with biological females and vice-versa. This is the same group
that was previously referred to as a hate group at a board meeting. Disagreement in
a matter and standing up for what is right is not the same as hate. And we all know
Facebook, if it were a hate group it would be shut down, censored or "fact checked".
The only "hate" that is being felt from this group is that we hate that our daughters
are being put in potentially unsafe situation, hate that their rights as young women
are being challenged and violated, hate that their health and well-being is being
jeopardized, hate that the school board hasn't been transparent with parents and hate
that moral ethics and social standards are not being followed in a place where our
children are to be kept safe ... the school.
One of the school boards responsibilities is the safety of the students. Allowing
males in the female bathroom and vice-versa is not safe and poses potential harm
to students of both genders. You have a duty and our daughters deserve the
protection that is biologically righted to them in having only other females in the
bathrooms and locker rooms. We implore you all to do better for daughters and the
female students at Vicksburg Community Schools. "4
57. In response, Board President Skip Knowles read the following statement prepared
prior to the meeting:
"I'm not going to sit there and make a statement about whether we do agree or don't
agree, but I am going to read a statement that we've had vetted by our attorneys and
I understand that this is tough.
First, please note that Vicksburg Community Schools and school officials will not
answer questions about the specific students because the disclosure of personally
identifiable information about the student violates federal Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act and state law.
Second, the district recognizes that providing students with a safe and
supportive educational environment is of the utmost importance. The
district's policies prohibits discrimination, bullying, harassment based on
the basis of sex, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity. In
addition, to following its policies it is equally important that the district
complies with federal, state, and local laws and guidance and legal
precedent related to unlawful discrimination, bullying, and harassment.
State and federal law and guidance and current binding case law in
Michigan require public schools to allow all students including transgender
4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6 patNmXnII at [20:00-25:00]
14
students to use the restrooms that corresponds with their their gender
identity. Or use single use ...
[Inaudible from audience]
[point at someone] I don't want any comments please.
Or to use single user restrooms whichever the student chooses. If the student
prefers to use single occupancy restroom we ask our students to let an
administrator know and arrangements will be made. Regardless of gender
identity, Vicksburg Community Schools expect that any individual using a
restroom will respect the privacy of everyone else using the restroom and
will conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. If not, the student will
be held accountable according to Vicksburg Community Schools discipline
policy. As a school community we are obligated to create a safe and
welcoming school climate, supervise it appropriately, and clearly articulate
expectations about acceptable behaviors. We are not also required to
address allegations of unlawful . . . we are also required to address
allegations of unlawful bullying, harassment, or discrimination and will
continue to do so.
The only thing I would ask everyone to understand, and this not [inaudible] this is
just listening to you guys' statement, you need to take this up with your legislators.
Our state rep around here is Matt Hall and I would tell you he would need to have
some action at the state level. We're kind of caught in the middle of it. 5
58. This statement by the School Board is factually and legally wrong. The School
Board does not mention and clearly refuses to recognize the precedent in the Sixth Circuit styled
L. W et al v Skrmetti et al, 23-5600 (6th Cir.) (recommended for publication). The United States
Supreme Court has not recognized "transgender" as a constitutionally protected class. "The Court
'has not recognized any new constitutionally protected classes in over four decades, and instead
has repeatedly declined to do so." Id. at 12 (quoting Ondo v City of Cleveland, 795 F.3d 597, 609
(6th Cir. 2015). Indeed, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) declined to address whether
gay individuals qualify as a suspect class.
59. Further, this case is a case of first impression in Michigan jurisprudence.
5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6 patNmXnII at [25:12-27:43]
15
60. Nevertheless, Defendants have published misinformation claiming this issue is
settled law. Defendants' policy, as described above, is grounded in gender identity theory, which
asserts that a person's subjective perception of their own "gender" should be more important in
every conceivable setting than sex, one's biological/anatomical status as either male or female.
61. Under gender identity theory, gender is subjectively assumed, not objectively
verifiable, exists on a continuum, and is sometimes fluid. By adopting gender identity theory as
the basis for regulating access to private facilities, Defendants are violating sex discrimination law
by not protecting students based on sex but instead imposing an individual's subjective perception
of their gender on other students who value their privacy based on anatomical differences between
the sexes.
62. This practice has had a severe and negative impact on Plaintiffs. For instance,
Plaintiffs have experienced embarrassment and humiliation, both in terms of being viewed and
viewing a student of the opposite sex in a state of undress and because of the stigmatization and
criticism they received from other students and adults, including Defendants, fueled by the
administration's policy and actions. Plaintiffs have experienced fear, embarrassment, and
humiliation by failing to timely void urine, which has a direct and adverse psychological and
physiological effect, and the Defendants' policy inhibits Plaintiffs from timely voiding. Plaintiffs
also fear the future embarrassment of meeting students of the opposite sex in the restroom when
simply relieving themselves. Plaintiffs now avoid using the restroom during the school day
because of the ongoing risk of having their privacy violated. Plaintiffs have lived in fear,
embarrassment, and humiliation by knowing their rights and privileges were be mocked and
ridiculed by Defendants, the School Board, administrators, teachers, attorneys, and other
employees.
16
63. Because of the School District's policy and actions, Plaintiffs do not feel secure in
the locker rooms or restrooms that are properly set aside for the exclusive use of girls to protect
their privacy from exposure to members of the opposite sex.
64. Michigan law is clear in MCL 750.355a that any person who "knowingly make[s]
any open or indecent exposure of his or her person ... is guilty of a crime." MCL 750.157a makes
it a felony to conspire to permit another person to commit such crime.
65. After Plaintiffs informed Principal Brush and Vice Principal Hawkins that there
was a boy in their restrooms exposing himself, Principal Brush and Vice Principal Hawkins
indicated that "the law was settled" that students who mentally identify themselves with the
opposite sex could choose the locker room and restroom to use, and physical sex did not matter.
66. Plaintiffs asked whether there was anything that Principal Brush and Vice Principal
Hawkins could do to protect them from this situation of being exposed to the male genitalia in the
female locker rooms and restrooms. Principal Brush and Vice Principal Goss responded that there
was nothing they could do and "it's fine.".
67. Principal Brush and Vice Principal Hawkins told Plaintiffs to "tolerate" it and make
it as "natural" as they possibly could. Principal Brush and Vice Principal Hawkins further stated
that Plaintiffs should try not to embarrass the male student exposing his genitalia. Rather, the
Plaintiffs should simply look the other way and that it was just as awkward for the male student.
68. The School District intentionally and purposefully caused Plaintiffs' privacy to be
violated. Indeed, the School District did not inform Plaintiffs or their Guardians before they
implemented this policy that they were permitting students of the male sex to enter locker rooms
and restrooms of students of the female sex in order to use the toilet and fully expose themselves.
17
69. The School District had not informed Plaintiffs or their Guardians that despite the
words on locker room and restroom doors, they would no longer protect Plaintiffs' expectation of
privacy from viewing or being viewed by members of the opposite sex when they are present in
multi-user private facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms.
70. The School District's directive to Plaintiffs was that they must change their clothes
with students of the opposite sex or use restrooms with students of the opposite sex, and make it
as natural as possible, and that anything less would be intolerant and bullying against male students
who profess a gender identity with the female sex.
71. After Plaintiffs' privacy was violated, the School District's actions marginalized and
shamed Plaintiffs, and unlawfully attempted to coerce and intimidate Plaintiffs into accepting
continuing violations of their bodily privacy.
72. The anxiety, embarrassment, and stress Plaintiffs (as females) feel as a direct result
of Defendants' practice and actions has caused them to refrain from using restrooms as much as
possible, stress about when and if they can use a given restroom without running into a naked or
exposed male person of the opposite sex, and opting to hold their bladder rather than using the
school's restroom. This has caused an ever-present distraction throughout the school day, including
during class instructional time. In some cases, Plaintiffs have missed classes and school.
73. Failing to timely void urine has direct and adverse psychological and physiological
effects, and the Defendants' policy inhibits Plaintiffs from timely voiding.
74. Plaintiffs' Guardians subsequently met with Superintendent O'Neill in June 2023 to
voice their concerns. Superintendent O'Neill brought the School District's attorney to the meeting.
75. Plaintiffs' Guardians explained how Plaintiffs' bodily privacy had been violated by
the School District's actions and sought answers to ensure it did not happen again. It was then that
18
Principal Brush indicated that the School District is "all-inclusive," the School District was advised
by its attorneys that "the law was settled," and that if Plaintiffs had a problem changing or using
restrooms with people of the opposite sex, they would give them permission to go to the principal's
office to change or urinate.
76. By mandating that Plaintiffs use the principal's office to change or urinate if they
want privacy, Defendants have prevented them from using the facilities that, by state and federal
law, are provided for use solely by females and that are required to ensure that students of one sex
have their privacy protected from members of the opposite sex.
77. The School District further marginalized, intimidated, and shamed Plaintiffs by
allowing them to be subject to indecent exposure, a criminal act, in violation ofMCL 750.335a.
78. The School District further marginalized, intimidated, and shamed Plaintiffs by
letting it be known to administrators, teachers, attorneys, and other employees of the School
District that Plaintiffs had gone to the Principal and Vice Principal over the violation of their bodily
privacy. This violated Plaintiffs' right to privacy.
79. Plaintiffs felt harassed, shamed, and bullied by the School District's publication to
administrators, teachers, attorneys, and other employees about the incident and their concerns.
80. The School District and its attorneys then advised Plaintiffs' Guardians that if they
were still uncomfortable with the "arrangements" provided, that they could try homeschooling "as
an option."
81. The School District's actions have forced Plaintiffs to stop changing in the locker
rooms and to stop using the girls' restrooms that are, by state law, specifically designated for
females. This has had adverse effects on Plaintiffs' physical and mental health.
82. Plaintiffs feel violated, humiliated, and embarrassed by the invasion of privacy.
19
83. Because of the privacy violation, as well as the School District's subsequent actions,
Plaintiffs have also experienced anxiety, stress, intimidation, fear, apprehension, and loss of
dignity.
84. These daily persistent feelings of anxiety, stress, humiliation, embarrassment,
apprehension, distress, and violation of privacy stay with Plaintiffs and impact them throughout
the day, distracting them from instructional time.
85. Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm because of the
Defendants' actions.
86. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT 1
VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY

IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
42 u.s.c. § 1983
87. Plaintiffs realleges all matters set forth above and incorporate them herein.
88. The Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens against violation of fundamental
rights by state actors.
89. Fundamental rights are liberty interests deeply rooted in the nation's history and
tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
90. Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to bodily privacy that, at a minimum, includes
protection from intimate exposure of their body and intimate activities to a person of the opposite
sex. It also includes the corollary protection from intimate exposure to a male's body or intimate
activities.
20
91. The fundamental right to bodily privacy as to persons of the opposite sex is deeply
rooted in the nation's history and tradition and has been recognized as flowing from the United
States Constitution as well as federal and state statutory and common law. See, e.g., Doe u. Luzerne
County, 660 F.3d 169, 176 n.5 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that a person has a privacy interest in his
or her "partially clothed body," recognized by various sister circuits, and arising out of the
Fourteenth Amendment); Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611, 621 (3d Cir. 1992)
(recognizing that the collection of urine sample may constitute an invasion of privacy if "it involves
the use of one's senses to oversee the private activities of another" since the performance in public
of such activities are "generally prohibited by law as well as social custom" and failure to regard
privacy "could constitute a substantial and highly offensive intrusion upon seclusion").
92. More recently on December 30, 2022, the en bane Eleventh Circuit, by a vote of7-
4, reversed the decision of the district court, concluding that the school district's policy of keeping
boys and girls separate does not violate the Constitution or Title IX. Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School
Board of St. Johns County, Florida. No. 18-13592 (11th Cir. Dec. 30, 2022) (for publication). In
that case, plaintiff Drew Adams, a biological female, was required to use the girls' restroom by the
school district. The en bane court concluded that "the bathroom policy does not unlawfully
discriminate on the basis of biological sex" and stated:
Indeed, the district court "agree[d] that the School Board has a legitimate interest
in protecting student privacy, which extends to bathrooms." Understanding why is
not difficult-schoolage children "are still developing, both emotionally and
physically." See Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 636 (4th Cir.
2020) (Niemeyer, J., dissenting) ("[A]ll individuals possess a privacy interest when
using restrooms or other spaces in which they remove clothes and engage in
personal hygiene, and this privacy interest is heightened when persons of the
opposite sex are present. Indeed, this privacy interest is heightened yet further when
children use communal restrooms .... "). And even the more generally acceptable
notion that the protection of individual privacy will occasionally require some
segregation between the sexes is beyond doubt-as then-Professor Ruth Bader
Ginsburg noted, "[s]eparate places to disrobe, sleep, [and] perform personal bodily
21
functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual

privacy." Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Fear of the Equal Rights Amendment, Wash.
Post, Apr. 7, 1975, at A21 (emphasis added).
93. The fundamental right to bodily privacy is also implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty because a government that compels its citizens to disrobe or attend to intimate activities in
the presence of the opposite sex violates the core of personal liberty, and it deprives its citizens of
the full benefits afforded to its citizens when it conditions those benefits on surrendering the right
to bodily privacy.
94. Throughout its history, American law and society has had a national commitment
to protecting citizens, and especially children, from suffering the risk of exposing their bodies, or
their intimate activities, to the opposite sex.
95. Our understanding of personal privacy from persons of the opposite sex is so
universal as to require the use of separate facilities on the basis of sex in all kinds of contexts. See
MCL 380.10 ("It is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and
direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. The public schools of this state serve the
needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil's parents and legal guardians to develop the
pupil's intellectual capabilities and vocational skills in a safe and positive environment."). See also
Mich. Admin Code R. 325.3627 requiring "[a] separate toilet facility for each sex shall be
provided."
96. Personal privacy is also recognized in the context of criminal law. For example, it
1s a misdemeanor to commit "lewd and lascivious" behavior. See MCL 750.335. It is a
misdemeanor to commit indecent exposure. See MCL 750.335a. It is a felony to commit "gross
indecency." See MCL 750.338, 338a, and 338b.
97. Criminal protections are heightened for children. See, e.g., MCL 750. l 45a making
it a felony for "an act of gross indecency" against children based on age.
22
98. It is illegal to possess, distribute, or even view images of naked children. See MCL
750.145c.
99. Michigan has also criminalized "sexting" pictures of minors. MCL 722.675.
100. Because of our national commitment to protect our citizens, and especially children,
from the risk of being exposed to the anatomy of the opposite sex, as well as the risk of being seen
by the opposite sex while attending to private, intimate needs, sex-separated restrooms and locker
rooms are ubiquitous in public places.
101. Using public restrooms and locker rooms separated by sex are an American social
and modesty norm.
102. Historically, purposefully entering a restroom or locker room designated for the
opposite biological sex has been considered wrongful, and even criminal, behavior.
103. Freedom from the risk of compelled intimate exposure to the opposite sex,
especially for minors, is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.
104. It is also implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
105. The ability to disrobe absent the presence of the opposite sex, along with the
freedom to use the restroom absent the presence of the opposite sex is fundamental to most people's
sense of self-respect and personal dignity.
106. If the government were granted the far-reaching and extreme power to compel its
citizens to disrobe or risk being unclothed in the presence of the opposite sex, then little personal
liberty involving our bodies would be left.
107. Because freedom from the risk of compelled exposure to the opposite biological
sex, especially for minors, is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and implicit in the
23
concept of ordered liberty, it is a fundamental right. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702,
721 (1997).
108. Specifically: minors have a fundamental right to be free from State compelled risk
of exposure of their bodies, or their intimate activities, such as occur within restrooms and locker
rooms, to the opposite biological sex.
109. An abridgement of fundamental rights is presumptively unconstitutional and can
only be justified if it survives strict scrutiny under which the law must serve a compelling state
interest by the most narrowly tailored means.
110. The Defendants' actions and practice violated Plaintiffs' fundamental right to
privacy because it allows a biological male into the girls' locker room and restroom and has
subjected Plaintiffs to being exposed to male genitalia.
111. Shocked and distressed, Plaintiffs met with Defendant Principal and Vice Principal.
112. When Plaintiffs asked to be protected from the situation, they were told that there
was nothing the School District could do and that instead, Plaintiffs would have to share the girls'
locker room or restrooms with a person of the opposite sex. They were told to tolerate it and make
it as natural as possible.
113. Even after Plaintiffs' Guardians got involved, they were told that the girls could use
the principal's office to change to change or use the restroom, which subjected Plaintiffs to
harassment and embarrassment.
114. Moreover, the policy harms Plaintiffs because unless they surrender their right to
bodily privacy, they can no longer use the locker room or restrooms designated for use by girls
without fear of being in the present of naked males.
24
115. Defendants' policy violates the fundamental constitutional principles of separate
facilities and denies Plaintiffs the right to use such a facility, instead conditioning the use of the
"girls"' locker room and restroom on surrendering their right to bodily privacy from persons of the
opposite sex.
116. Plaintiffs and their Guardians on multiple occasions brought up the policy with the
Principal, the Vice Principal, and the Superintendent, but their requests for a change in the School
District's policy were denied.
117. Plaintiffs and their guardians were told that the school was no longer going to
discuss this issue with them or any parents.
118. The Defendants have no compelling interest to justify this violation of Plaintiffs'
right to bodily privacy from persons of the opposite sex.
119. The violation of this right is particularly acute where, as here, their right was first
violated without any notice or consent in a place traditionally reserved for persons of one biological
sex.
120. The violation was ongoing because it compromises the most intimate aspects of
human affairs and involves a setting traditionally reserved for persons of one biological sex. It
effectively denies the appropriate use of this setting in a manner conveying sexual harassment and
official bullying, and which is otherwise inconsistent with deeply rooted notions of fundamental
personal interests in personal privacy from persons of the opposite biological sex.
121. Defendants failed to employ the least restrictive means of serving any interest that
they may later articulate.
122. Accordingly, the actions and practice fail strict scrutiny review and are
unconstitutional.
25
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant declaratory relief in favor
of Plaintiffs; grant declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights
to privacy and violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; award
damages in an amount of no less than $30,000.00 for the injuries sustained plus additional damages
as may be proven to compensate them for losses and damages demanded in this Complaint, plus
compensatory, incidental, noneconomic, exemplary, and punitive damages, together with interest,
costs, and actual attorney's fees incurred in maintaining this matter; grant such additional relief as
the Court deems appropriate; and grant the further relief set forth hereinafter in the Prayer for
Relief.
COUNT2
VIOLATION OF TITLE IX
123. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above and incorporate them herein.
124. Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex,
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. § 168l(a).
125. The School District is a federal funding recipient for purposes of Title IX.
126. Courts have given Title IX broad effect in order to combat sex discrimination in the
educational setting.
127. There is an implied right of action for a student to sue his school and school officials
under Title IX.
128. Defendants' authorizing people to use restrooms or locker rooms that are designated
for the opposite biological sex violates privacy and creates a sexually harassing hostile
environment.
26
129. Unconsented exposure to persons of the opposite-sex in various states of undress
creates a sexually harassing hostile environment.
130. The policy of the school is to allow those who self-identify with the opposite
biological sex to choose to use locker rooms and restrooms that are designated for the opposite
biological sex.
131. Plaintiffs do not objectto students of the same sex using private facilities with them,
no matter how they self-identify, and they have no expectation of privacy from such students.
132. However, the School Districts' policy needlessly subjects Plaintiffs to the risk that
their partially unclothed bodies will be exposed to the opposite sex and that they will be exposed
to a partially clothed person of the opposite-sex, which has actually occurred when the policy was
implemented.
133. As a result, Plaintiffs experienced embarrassment, humiliation, frustration,
degradation, and loss of dignity.
134. Plaintiffs have been marginalized by other students on account of their objection to
the policy.
135. Plaintiffs are avoiding the restroom as a result of the fear and apprehension of
embarrassment, humiliation, degradation, and loss of dignity they may experience in the restroom.
136. Plaintiffs have altogether ceased using the locker room and restrooms because of
the legitimate fear that they will be in a state of undress or exposed to an opposite sex student in a
state of undress or be exposed to naked males without their consent.
13 7. The policy violates Title IX because it intentionally produces unwelcome sexual
harassment and creates a hostile environment on the basis of sex and denies access to educational
programs and benefits.
27
138. In order to make out a Title IX claim: (1) plaintiffs must be subjected to sexual
harassment; (2) the harassment must be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive; (3) the school
must be deliberately indifferent to the harassment; and (4) the harassment must result in the denial
of access.
13 9. Plaintiffs satisfy all elements.
140. First, Plaintiffs have been subjected to harassment because the practice allows
biological males to use the girls' locker rooms and restrooms, which creates a harassing hostile
environment specifically on the basis of the sex of the persons involved.
141. Differences in anatomy is the only reason for separate facilities. Were there no
differences in anatomy, there would be no privacy interests justifying separate facilities in the first
place.
142. These differences do not disappear when biological males self-identify as females,
and vice versa.
143. Neither state nor federal law obligates Defendants to provide multi-user private
facilities based on what a student wears, whom the student is sexually attracted to, how the student
presents or identifies himself or herself, or based on whether a student identifies with their sex or
with the opposite sex.
144. The anatomical differences between the sexes is the reason that Title IX and its
implementing regulations allow for separate living facilities, restrooms, locker rooms, and
changing areas for each biological sex.
145. Title IX and its implementing regulations provide for separate living facilities,
restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas for each biological sex based on the recognition that
28
permitting a person of one biological sex to enter and use the facilities designated for the opposite
sex would be sexually harassing.
146. The policy, which opens the girls' restrooms and locker rooms to biological males,
is harassment based on the girls' sex.
14 7. Plaintiffs have experienced humiliation, degradation, and loss of dignity and fear
the same in the future as a result of the policy and practice.
148. It is the significant and real anatomical differences between the biological sexes
that creates the hostile environment, which is harassment.
149. Second, the harassment is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.
150. Letting biological males use the girls' restrooms and locker rooms places the bodily
privacy of both sexes at risk, and so is sufficiently egregious to satisfy the severity prong.
151. The harassment is ongoing and continuous, preventing Plaintiffs from using the
locker room and discouraging them from using the restrooms, thus satisfying the pervasiveness
prong.
152. The environment is one that a reasonable person would find hostile and objectively
offensive, and one that Plaintiffs in fact perceives to be so.
153. The objective unreasonableness is evident in the fact that we have long recognized
the right to a private setting, free from persons of the opposite sex, when in a state of undress or
performing private functions.
154. This principle is recognized in numerous areas of the law, as stated above.
155. Third, school officials are not only on notice of the hostile environment, but it is
the Defendants' policy that establishes and sustains the hostile environment.
29
156. Moreover, Plaintiffs and their Guardians repeatedly notified the individual
Defendants, who then told Plaintiffs and their Guardians that this is what the school will be doing
as a matter of policy.
157. The Defendants have authority to rescind their policy which would resolve the
hostile environment created by that policy.
158. Despite their knowledge that their practice is creating a hostile environment based
on sex, the Defendants have not remedied the situation.
159. Instead, these officials have advised that, if Plaintiffs perceive the environment to
be hostile, Plaintiffs should remove themselves from it by using the principal's office.
160. Schools cannot escape liability for Title IX violations by requiring the victim of
harassment to remove herself from the hostile environment or otherwise suggesting that she is
responsible for the harassment he endures.
161. The principal's office "accommodation" creates a separate but unequal facility that
violates Title IX.
162. Fourth, Plaintiffs have been effectively denied the use of facilities that are to be
provided, pursuant to state and federal law, on account of their biological sex.
163. Defendants' policy and actions violate Title IX by creating a hostile environment
on the basis of sex.
of Plaintiffs; grant declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Title IX; award damages in an
amount of no less than $30,000.00 for the injuries sustained plus additional damages as may be
proven to compensate them for losses and damages demanded in this Complaint, plus
compensatory, incidental, noneconomic, exemplary, and punitive damages, together with interest,
30
costs, and actual attorney's fees incurred in maintaining this matter; grant such additional relief as
the Court deems appropriate; and grant the further relief set forth hereinafter in the Prayer for
Relief.
COUNT3
INVASION OF PRIVACY and INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
165. Defendants purposely opened up the girls' locker room and restroom to a biological
male who identified as a female.
166. As a result, Plaintiffs found themselves in the presence of a biological male, who
was naked.
167. One's partially clothed body is a private affair, particularly with regards to a
member of the opposite sex.
168. Defendants' practice, therefore, caused Plaintiffs' private affairs to be intruded upon
by being viewed by someone of the opposite sex and intruded upon their privacy by forcing them
to be at a place to see a partially clothed male body.
169. Laws and social custom have long protected our right to be free from undressing in
the view of someone of the opposite sex and to be free from viewing someone of the opposite sex
undressing.
170. In particular, laws applicable to public schools require separate facilities on the
basis of sex, which has always been understood to mean on the basis of biological/anatomical sex.
171. Defendants' practice failed to give due regard to Plaintiffs' privacy.
172. Therefore, the circumstances in which Plaintiffs found themselves, particularly in
a setting designed to be private with regards to persons of the opposite sex, would be highly
offensive to the ordinary reasonable person.
31
173. Plaintiffs lack ongoing access to the girls' locker room and are discouraged in their
use of the girls' restroom as a result of this invasion of seclusion.
174. The intrusions by Defendants were and are objectionable and offensive to a
reasonable person, including Plaintiffs.
175. "Michigan has long recognized the common-law tort of invasion of privacy." Lewis
v. LeGrow, 258 Mich.App 175, 193; 670 NW2d 675 (2003).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court award damages in an amount of
no less than $30,000.00 for the injuries sustained plus additional damages as may be proven to
compensate them for losses and damages demanded in this Complaint, plus compensatory,
incidental, noneconomic, exemplary, and punitive damages, together with interest, costs, and
actual attorney's fees incurred in maintaining this matter; grant such additional relief as the Court
deems appropriate; and grant the further relief set forth hereinafter in the Prayer for Relief.
COUNT4
NEGLIGENT BREACH OF FIDICUARY DUTY
177. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendants owed a common law and other
fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs through their position as state actors.
178. Defendants negligently breached that duty on more than one occasion when they
allowed biological males to enter the girls' bathrooms and locker rooms and such breaches were
the actual and proximate cause of harm to Plaintiffs.
179. Accordingly, Defendants are liable in damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be
proven at trial, arising out of Defendants' negligent breach of their fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs.
32
COUNTS
RECKLESS BREACH OF FIDICUARY DUTY
182. Defendants recklessly breached that duty on more than one occasion when they
COUNT6
INTENTIONAL BREACH OF FIDICUARY DUTY
33
186. Defendants intentionally breached that duty on more than one occasion when they
COUNT7
DECLARATORY RELIEF
189. An actual controversy has risen and now exists between the parties concerning the
following matters:
a. Defendants' continuous violations of Plaintiffs' fundamental right to privacy
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
as set forth in Count 1 above.
b. Defendants' continuous violations of Title IX which have and continue to
affect Plaintiffs on a daily basis.
34
c. Defendants' continuous violations of their fiduciary duties as state actors to
Plaintiffs which have and continue to affect Plaintiffs on a daily basis.
190. Judicial declarations are necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties
to ascertain their rights and duties to each other.
of Plaintiffs; grant declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights
to privacy, violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and violated
Title IX; award damages in an amount of no less than $30,000.00 for the injuries sustained plus
additional damages as may be proven to compensate them for losses and damages demanded in
this Complaint, plus compensatory, incidental, noneconomic, exemplary, and punitive damages,
together with interest, costs, and actual attorney's fees incurred in maintaining this matter; grant
such additional relief as the Court deems appropriate; and grant the further relief set forth
hereinafter in the Prayer for Relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and/or
severally, as follows:
A. A declaration that the Defendants' actions and practice violates Plaintiffs'
constitutional right to privacy.
B. A declaration that Defendants' actions were a violation of the Michigan School
Reform Act.
C. A declaration that Defendants committed an unlawful intrusion upon Plaintiffs'
seclusion and bodily privacy rights.
35
D. A declaration that the Defendants' actions and practice impermissibly burdens
Plaintiffs' rights under Title IX to be free from discrimination based on sex by creating a sexually
harassing hostile environment.
E. A declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties.
F. Additional declaratory relief as requested herein.
G. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants' policy and ordering the
Defendants to permit only biological females to enter and use the School District's girls' private
facilities, including locker rooms and restrooms, and only biological males to enter and use the
boys' private facilities, including locker rooms and restrooms.
H. An award of compensatory damages for the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional
and statutory rights in an amount of greater than $30,000;
I. An order that this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of
enforcing any Orders;
J. An award of Plaintiffs' costs and expenses of this action, including a reasonable
attorneys' fees award, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 42 U.S.C § 1988;
K. All other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled, including attorneys' fees and
costs.
DePERNO LAW OFFICE, PLLC
Dated: August 25, 2023 /s/ Matthew S. DePerno

Matthew S. DePerno
Attorney for Plaintiffs
951 W. Milham Avenue
PO Box 1595
Portage, MI 49081
(269) 321-5064
[email protected]
36
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys DePERNO LAW OFFICE, PLLC, hereby
demands a trial by jury in the above-entitled matter as to all issues and claims for which a jury trial
is allowed.
DePERNO LAW OFFICE, PLLC
Dated: August 25, 2023 Isl Matthew S. DePerno

Matthew S. DePerno
Attorney for Plaintiffs
951 W. Milham Avenue
PO Box 1595
Portage, MI 49081
(269) 321-5064
[email protected]
37

Jane Doe Vs Vicksburg Schools Filing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jane Doe Vs Vicksburg Schools Filing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jane Doe Vs Vicksburg Schools Filing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-00901 ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JANE DOES #1-#4, minors, by and through

VICKSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOLS;

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

VICKSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOLS; KEEVIN O'NEILL in his official capacity as

Superintendent of Vicksburg Community Schools; STEVE GOSS in his official capacity as

Assistant Superintendent of Vicksburg Community Schools; ADAM BRUSH in his official

which requires separate facilities based on sex.

abandonment is of the very essence of personal freedom and dignity.

the girls' multi-user private restrooms and locker rooms.

of using the girls' restroom.

multi-user private facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms.

schools. Defendants also breached their fiduciary duties.

have taken precisely these actions in this case.

and order the other relief requested herein.

JURISDICTION and VENUE

Revised School Code.

U.S.C. § 2412, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

the District Defendant is located.

19. Plaintiffs request trial by jury, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

behalf by and through her legal Guardians.

action is brought on her behalf by and through her legal Guardians.

is brought on her behalf by and through her legal Guardians.

action is brought on her behalf by and through her legal Guardians.

B. Defendant Vicksburg Community Schools

of the State of Michigan.

kindergarten through 12th-grade education.

requirement s of Title IX.

9, 10, 11 and 12.

who oversee a number of district-level administrators.

Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, administrators, teachers, attorneys, and other

C. Defendant Superintendent Keevin O'Neill

provided for in the School District Bylaws and Policies.

D. Defendant Assistant Superintendent Steve Goss

E. Defendant Principal Adam Brush

F. Defendant Vice Principal Matthew Hawkins

Vicksburg Community High School.

female restrooms and locker rooms.

longer wait periods per restroom stall.

that other students had experienced the same encounter.

at school but has also affected their attitudes.

Plaintiff to fear for her safety.

School District and is a requirement to graduate.

class. See MCL 380.1502.

by members of the opposite sex.

in the locker rooms.

49. Plaintiffs have experienced immediate confusion, embarrassment, humiliation, and

himself to female students.

Vice Principal Hawkins to let him know what had happened.

have taken precisely these actions in this case.

they would be met with considerable opposition.

School Board. One parent stated:

56. Another parent stated:

3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6 patNmXnII at [18:10- 19:47]

prior to the meeting:

4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6 patNmXnII at [20:00-25:00]

[Inaudible from audience]