R.M.A., a transgender student, sued Blue Springs R-IV School District in the Circuit Court of Jackson County raising claims of sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act for being denied access to male restrooms and locker rooms. The circuit court initially dismissed the case, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded for trial, where a jury found in favor of R.M.A. and awarded $175,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. The school district appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
Factual Overview
R.M.A. is a female-to-male transgender individual who was born as a female and transitioned to living as a male in September 2009 while attending fourth grade. In 2010, R.M.A. was granted a legal name change to a traditionally male name, and in 2014, obtained an amended birth certificate reflecting the name change and changing the sex designation from female to male. R.M.A. requested permission to use male-designated restrooms and locker room facilities during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, but the School District denied these requests.
In October 2014, R.M.A. filed a discrimination charge with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights alleging public accommodation discrimination based on sex. In July 2015, the Commission issued a notice of right to sue, and R.M.A. filed a petition in October 2015 alleging sex discrimination under section 213.065 of the Missouri Human Rights Act. The School District moved to dismiss, arguing that the public accommodation protection did not cover claims based on gender identity. The circuit court initially granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, but R.M.A. appealed.
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, finding that R.M.A. had sufficiently alleged the elements of a sex discrimination claim and remanded for further proceedings. The case proceeded to trial in December 2021, where the jury found the School District liable for sex discrimination based on R.M.A.’s “male sex” and awarded damages. The School District subsequently filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial.
Legal Analysis
Standard for Sex Discrimination Claims: The court established that to make a submissible case of sex discrimination in public accommodations under the Missouri Human Rights Act, a plaintiff must present evidence supporting three elements: (1) plaintiff is a member of a class protected under section 213.065; (2) plaintiff was discriminated against in the use of a public accommodation; and (3) plaintiff’s status as a member of a protected class was a contributing factor in such discrimination.
Definition of “Sex” Under Missouri Law: The court addressed the central legal issue of how to define “sex” as used in section 213.065 of the Missouri Human Rights Act. Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the court looked to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “sex” as found in dictionary definitions. The court determined that “sex” refers to biological classification as male or female, citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary definition emphasizing biological characteristics related to reproduction and genetic factors. The court found this biological understanding was reinforced by the Missouri General Assembly’s consistent rejection of proposed amendments since 2019 that would have extended section 213.065 to specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Application to R.M.A.’s Claims: The court concluded that R.M.A. failed to make a submissible case for sex discrimination because the evidence showed the School District’s denial was based on R.M.A.’s female biological sex rather than male sex. The court found that the only evidence presented at trial demonstrated that R.M.A. was excluded from male facilities because of female genitalia, not because of any male sex characteristics. Under the court’s definition of sex as biological classification, R.M.A. could not establish that male sex was a contributing factor in the discrimination.
Rejection of Bostock Analysis: The court distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which interpreted federal employment discrimination law, finding it not applicable to Missouri’s public accommodation provisions. The court emphasized that Bostock was an employment case that specifically reserved judgment on public accommodation issues and noted the Supreme Court’s express limitation that it did not address “bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.”
Jury Instructions: R.M.A. argued that the circuit court improperly limited the jury instructions by requiring proof that “male sex” was a contributing factor rather than simply “sex.” The court rejected this argument, finding that the instructions properly reflected the legal requirements and that R.M.A.’s proposed broader interpretation would contradict established precedent requiring proof of the specific protected characteristic.
The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment sustaining the School District’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that under Missouri law, “sex” in anti-discrimination statutes refers to biological sex and R.M.A. failed to prove discrimination based on male sex as legally defined.
Schrag on Law 