JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. _ In a case that will likely have wide-ranging consequences, the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a discrimination case brought by a transgender student from the Kansas City area can proceed.
A student known in court documents as R.M.A. sued the Blue Springs School District in October 2015 after administrators would not allow him access to a boy's locker room and rest room. The student was born a female but has identified as a male since the fourth grade.
A circuit court dismissed the lawsuit, and the case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in April.
In a 5-2 majority opinion authored by Judge Paul C. Wilson, the state Supreme Court said that because R.M.A. alleged discrimination based on sex, he should be allowed to prove his case in a lower court.
"R.M.A.'s petition alleges he is a member of a protected class, he was discriminated against in the use of a public accommodation, his status as a member of a protected class was the basis for the discrimination he suffered, and he sustained damages, as required by section 213.065," the court said. "At this stage of the proceedings, that is all that is required of R.M.A."
Based on the R.M.A. ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court also said Tuesday that a lower court would have to re-examine the case of Harold Lampley, a gay state employee who alleged sex discrimination and retaliation against his employer, the Missouri Department of Social Services.
The Missouri Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry and sex.
But, the law does not explicitly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Tony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU of Missouri, said that state courts had never decided whether someone can sue if they were discriminated against for not adhering to sex stereotypes.
"Federal courts are all in agreement that you can prove sex discrimination by showing that the employer or landlord was engaging in sex stereotyping," Rothert said. "And prior to today, Missouri had never said one way or another whether you could prove sex discrimination that way."
Federal courts are still divided as to whether "LGBT folks can use sex stereotyping discrimination to prove a sex discrimination claim," he said.
A recent case out of Sunset Hills illustrates how the federal courts are divided on the issue. A federal judge last month dismissed a case brought by Mary Walsh and Bev Nance, a married lesbian couple who said they were discriminated against by the Friendship Village retirement community on the basis of sex stereotypes.
That lawsuit argued the couple were treated "less favorably because of their sex (and) less favorably because of their association with a person of a particular sex ... (and) on the basis of their nonconformity with sex stereotypes."
But U.S. District Judge Jean C. Hamilton said:
"Under (the) circumstances, the Court finds the claims boil down to those of discrimination based on sexual orientation rather than sex alone," the decision reads, citing a previous court decision reached in 1990. "The Eighth Circuit has squarely held that 'Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.'"
Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Zel M. Fischer interpreted Missouri law in a similar way in his dissent.
"The substantive principles of law within the MHRA define the word 'sex' as biological sex," he said. Thus, the lawsuit could only move forward "if it alleges that, as a biological female, R.M.A. was deprived of a public accommodation available to biological males."
Judge W. Brett Powell sided with Fischer, while the court's remaining four judges sided with Wilson in the 5-2 decision.
The majority wrote:
"(T)he MHRA does not provide for 'types' of sex discrimination claims; a claim is either a claim of sex discrimination or it is not. Rather than a 'type' of sex discrimination claim, 'sex stereotyping' merely is one way to prove a claim of sex discrimination, i.e., 'sex stereotyping' can be evidence of sex discrimination."
A representative with the Missouri attorney general's office said the office was reviewing the decision and did not have further comment.
The ACLU of Missouri, which filed an amicus brief in support of R.M.A., urged the Legislature to approve the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act, which would include explicit protections for LGBT people in Missouri law.
"We hope this sends a message to the Missouri Legislature to clarify our Missouri Human Rights Act for LGBTQ individuals who already face higher rates of gender-based discrimination in their workplaces, homes, and at school," Steph Perkins, executive director of PROMO, a Missouri LGBT advocacy group, said in a statement.
