Transgender student files sex discrimination lawsuit against Joplin R-8, Sachetta, former officials

A former Joplin High School student is suing the Joplin R-8 School District, current Assistant Superintendent Kerry Sachetta, former principal Brandon Eggleston and former interim superintendent Norm Ridder for sexual discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation.

In the lawsuit, which was originally filed in Jasper County Circuit Court in 2018 and was moved to U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Wednesday, the plaintiff Natalie Murray, the mother of the former student claims her child, who is referred to only by initials or as "plaintiff" in the petition, was discriminated against because he was diagnosed as having gender dysphoria and was not permitted to use the boys' bathrooms or locker rooms at the high school.

Murray, who is represented by attorney Alexander Edelman of the Kansas City firm of Edelman, Liesen and Myers, is asking for "actual and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and related litigation and enforcement expenses, order injunctive relief including, but not limited to, preventing Defendants from engaging in future discrimination, and order such other and further relief as just and proper. "

The allegations against the district and its current and former officials was detailed in the petition, which says the younger Murray became aware at age 10 that "he did not feel like a girl," and he "began asserting his male identity by age of 12."

Beginning with his eighth grade year, he attended school as a male.

His parents sought treatment and the child was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, according to the petition and began treatment at the Gender Pathways Clinic at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City:

A critical component of the WPATH Standards of Care is a social transition to living full-time consistently with the individual’s actual sex. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s treatment providers recommended that he immediately begin living as a boy in all respects. That included using a male name and pronouns and using boys’ restrooms. 

Plaintiff’s care providers have provided medical documentation confirming that he was receiving treatment for Gender Dysphoria, and that as a part of that treatment, he should be treated in all respects as a boy, including using the boys’ restroom. 

For transgender children, it is critical that the social transition involve full transition at school, including with respect to restrooms. Excluding a transgender boy from the boys’ restroom or forcing him to use a separate facility from other boys, communicates to the entire school community that he should not be recognized as a boy and undermines the social transition process. 

Plaintiff has a name that is commonly used by both males and females, and at his request, his friends and family refer to him using male pronouns. Plaintiff uses the men’s restrooms when out in public, e.g. at restaurants, libraries, shopping centers, and other public venues. Plaintiff has presented and socially interacted with others entirely as a boy since he began 8th grade in the Joplin R-VIII School District in 2014. 

On or about August 11, 2016, Plaintiff’s mother, Natalie Murray (hereinafter “Murray”), asked Defendant former Principal Brandon Eggleston that Plaintiff be allowed to use the boys’ restrooms and locker room at Joplin High School. 

Murray offered Eggleston medical documentation of Plaintiff’s condition from Children’s Mercy Hospital, which explained that Plaintiff’s use of the boys’ bathrooms and locker room was a medical necessity for his mental health. 

Eggleston responded he knew nothing of Plaintiff’s situation and that he would have to check with others, those others being Defendants Norm Ridder and Kerry Sachetta regarding how the request should be handled and get back to her. 

On or about the evening of August 11, 2016, Eggleston contacted Murray and informed her that Plaintiff would be required to use a gender-neutral bathroom or the girls’ bathroom and locker room. 

Murray explained to Eggleston that the girls’ bathrooms and locker room were unsafe for Plaintiff because in seventh grade Plaintiff had been assaulted by another student in the girls’ bathroom because he looked like a boy. 

Murray also explained that Plaintiff had been told by another female student on another occasion that he did not belong in the girls’ restrooms because he is a boy. Defendants responded that they did not believe it was unsafe for Plaintiff to use the girls’ bathrooms and locker room and that Plaintiff would not be in any physical danger if he did so. 

In or about late August 2016 another student at Joplin High School confronted Plaintiff as he was entering one of the single-person, gender-neutral bathrooms Defendants required him to use. This bathroom, like all other such single-person bathrooms, was marked “Faculty,” and student access was prohibited by a sign on the door. 

The student told Plaintiff that he was not supposed to go in there. Plaintiff had to explain to this student that he had special permission to use this bathroom. Having to explain his use of the faculty bathroom to another student was humiliating, embarrassing and degrading for Plaintiff. It singled him out for disparate treatment from other boys and clearly distinguished him as “different” or “other” than every other boy in the school based on his sex. 

Defendants barred Plaintiff from using the boys’ bathrooms and locker room for the entire time he attended Joplin High School. Defendants further denied his request for accommodation of his medical condition, despite being presented with documentation from his treating physician that this accommodation was medically necessary for his mental health. 

As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has had to seek further counseling for anxiety and depression related to school attendance and Defendants’ prohibition of his use of the boys’ bathrooms and locker room. 

On or about September 22, 2016, Plaintiff was prescribed anti-depressants as a result of the depression and emotional distress Plaintiff suffered as a result of Defendants’ actions. 

Because Defendants prohibited Plaintiff from using the boys’ bathrooms at school district facilities, he was often forced to hold his urine for the entire day without going to the bathroom. As a result, Plaintiff developed urinary tract infections and lost the ability to know when he needed to relieve himself until it was too late; he often had accidents on the way home from school. 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was the only student in his school who had to use separate, gender-neutral restrooms.  

Because of his medical diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, the option for Plaintiff to use the girls’ restroom was neither practical nor desirable, and exposed him to serious psychological harm. Defendants’ policy thus required Plaintiff to use only the designated gender-neutral restroom, which stigmatized Plaintiff and marked him as different from the other students; it isolated Plaintiff from his peers and exposed him to serious psychological harm. 

As a result of this trauma, and in order to avoid the stigma of having to use separate restrooms, Plaintiff tried to avoid using any restrooms during the school day, beyond his capacity to delay relieving himself. 

Because of J.R.M.’s anxiety, depression, and fears for his safety if he were to use the girls’ bathrooms, his mother requested the District provide him an accommodation to assist his learning. Defendants, through their representatives, scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother, and asked her to bring medical and psychological documentation to this meeting to support the request for an accommodation. 

On or about October 10, 2016, the meeting was held, and Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother brought the documents as requested. When Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother arrived at the meeting, Defendants had already completed paperwork denying the request for an accommodation before they were permitted to present supporting documentation and before any meeting was held. 

Defendants had already determined to deny Plaintiff’s request without providing them the opportunity to be heard. Plaintiff was barred from using the boys’ restroom because he was perceived as being somehow “different” or “other” from the other boys in his school and was therefore singled out for disparate treatment. 

Defendants’ transgender restroom policy discriminates against Plaintiff on the basis of gender and sex and because he does not conform to sex stereotypes. Plaintiff has experienced severe anxiety and depression related to his social transition in that he has not been permitted to use the boys’ restrooms at school at any time since he began attending school in the School District. 

Plaintiff chose not to use the single person, gender neutral restrooms because they make him feel stigmatized and isolated, because other students asked him why he used the “Faculty” bathrooms. 

The embarrassment and distress caused by Defendants’ discriminatory conduct was so severe that it became unbearable to Plaintiff, as it would have been to any reasonable person in his position, and therefore Plaintiff was forced to leave the school district.