N.H. v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, A19-1944

• Decision Date: 28 September 2020
• Docket Number: A19-1944
• Citation: 950 N.W.2d 553
• Parties: N.H., Respondent, and Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, plaintiff-intervenor, Respondent, v. ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

950 N.W.2d 553

N.H., Respondent,andRebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, plaintiff-intervenor, Respondent,

v.ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11, Appellant.

A19-1944

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed September 28, 2020

REYES, Judge

Appellant-school-district argues on appeal that the district court erred by denying its motion to dismiss respondent-transgender-student's claims arising out of the school district's requirement that the student use separate locker-room facilities. The district court certified two questions as important and doubtful:

Under Rule 12.02(e) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1 (2018), may relief be granted when a school district requires a transgender boy to use locker-room facilities separate from the main boys’ locker-room facilities, or is the claim barred by Goins v. W. Grp. , 635 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2001) ?

Under Rule 12.02(e) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and the equal-protection rights granted under the Minnesota Constitution, may relief be granted when a school district requires a transgender boy to use locker-room facilities separate from the main boys’ locker-room facilities and, if so, what level of scrutiny applies?

We rephrase the certified questions, answer in the affirmative, affirm the district court's denial of appellant's motion to dismiss, reverse on the district court's application of strict scrutiny as opposed to intermediate scrutiny, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

While born female, N.H. identifies as and has socially transitioned to male. N.H. uses masculine pronouns, has selected a name that aligns with his male gender identity, and styles his hair and dresses in a traditionally masculine fashion. N.H. attended Coon Rapids High School (CRHS), a public high school in Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 (the school district) from 2015 to 2017. During his freshman year, N.H. joined the boys’ swim team, and CRHS initially allowed him to use the boys’ locker room. Toward the end of the swim season, the school district notified N.H. that he could not use the boys’ locker room and had to use the girls’ locker room, but retracted its decision later that same day. Four days later, N.H. was hospitalized because of mental-health concerns.

In March 2016, the school district's general counsel and director of student services and Title IX¹ coordinator wrote a memorandum addressing transgender-student use of bathrooms and locker rooms. The memorandum refers to "uncertainty between Minnesota state law, federal law, and the federal Office of Civil Rights," and indicates that restroom and locker-room use will "be determined on a case-by-case basis .... to ensure that all students feel safe and comfortable."

Between N.H.’s freshman and sophomore year, the school district remodeled the CRHS boys’ locker room, creating a new "enhanced privacy" boys’ changing area adjacent to the main boys’ locker room, with a separate entrance. It includes a private toilet stall and two private stalls for changing and showering. In March 2017, the school district wrote to J.H., N.H.’s mother, recommending that N.H., then a sophomore, "use the boys’ locker room with enhanced privacy" in connection with his physical-education class.

N.H. continued to use the main boys’ locker room. The school district informed J.H. that N.H. would be disciplined if he continued to use the main boys’ locker room. In April 2017, N.H. transferred to a school outside the school district. In August 2017, J.H. filed a charge of discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR).

In 2019, J.H. filed this civil action in Anoka County, alleging one count of violating the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1, and one count of violating the equal-protection provisions of article I, sections 1 and 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, and withdrew the charge filed at the MDHR. See Minn. R. 5000.0550. The complaint seeks, among other things, to permanently enjoin the school district from requiring transgender students to use facilities that are inconsistent with their gender identity. The school district moved to dismiss the complaint. When N.H. turned 18, he replaced J.H. as plaintiff, and the MDHR filed a notice of intervention. The district court denied the school district's motion to dismiss N.H.’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, determined that N.H.’s complaint stated a claim under both the MHRA and the Minnesota Constitution for violations of his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process,² determined that the strict scrutiny standard applied to N.H.’s equal-protection claim, and granted the MDHR's motion to intervene.

In October 2019, the district court granted the joint motion of the school district and N.H. to certify two questions of law for appeal pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(i) (providing that district court may certify "important and doubtful" questions presented, in context of order denying motion to dismiss for failure to state claim). In February and March 2020, amici curiae filed eight amicus curiae briefs in support of N.H. This appeal follows.

ISSUES

I. Are the district court's certified questions important and doubtful?

II. Did the district court err by denying the school district's motion to dismiss N.H.’s claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?

A. Does a transgender high-school student who is denied use of a locker room that is available to students of the gender with which the student identifies and to which the student has socially transitioned state a claim upon which relief can be granted of sexual-orientation discrimination under Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1 ?

B. Does a transgender high-school student who is denied use of a locker room that is available to students of the gender with which the student identifies and to which the student has socially transitioned state a claim upon which relief can be granted of an equal-protection violation under article I, section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution ?

ANALYSIS

I. The district court's certified questions are important and doubtful.

A party may appeal an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted "if the [district] court certifies that the question presented is important and doubtful." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(i). Because certified questions present issues of law, we review them de novo. Fedziuk v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety , 696 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. 2005). We independently determine whether certified questions are important and doubtful. Nat'l City Bank of Minneapolis v. Lundgren , 435 N.W.2d 588, 590 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Mar. 29, 1989).

"A question is increasingly important if" (1) it has a statewide impact; (2) its resolution will dispose of potentially lengthy proceedings; (3) incorrectly decided, it will substantially harm the parties; and (4) it is likely to be reversed. Jostens, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. , 612 N.W.2d 878, 884 (Minn. 2000). We "give special consideration to whether reversal would terminate potentially lengthy proceedings." Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Invs. Ltd. P'ship , 858 N.W.2d 824, 830 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotation omitted). "A question is doubtful only if there is no controlling precedent" and it is "one on which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion." Id. (quotation omitted).

As a matter of policy, appellate courts may rephrase certified questions to allow an unqualified "yes" or "no." See Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley , 698 N.W.2d 424, 429-30 (Minn. 2005) (rephrasing certified question); Ames & Fischer Co., II, LLP v. McDonald , 798 N.W.2d 557, 561-62 n.2 (Minn. App. 2011) (same), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

The parties here ask us to review the district court's decision on a rule 12 motion in light of the allegations in N.H.’s complaint, which describes the relevant facts. Because the certified questions are both compound, making it difficult to answer the first question in the form of an unqualified "yes" or "no," and impossible to answer the second question as stated, we rephrase the parties’ certified questions as follows: (1) Does a transgender high-school student who is denied use of a locker room that is available to students of the gender with which the student identifies and to which the student has socially transitioned state a claim upon which relief can be granted of sexual-orientation discrimination under Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1 ? and (2) Does a transgender high-school student who is denied use of a locker room that is available to students of the gender with which the student identifies and to which the student has socially transitioned state a claim upon which relief can be granted of an equal-protection violation under article I, section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution ?

Regarding whether the certified questions are important, there is no dispute that both have statewide impact. According to the district court, an estimated 24,250 adults in Minnesota identify as transgender, all of whom were high-school students at some point. Further, resolution will potentially be dispositive of lengthy proceedings because, if we reverse the district court's denial of the school district's motion to dismiss, the matter will be remanded to dispose of the remaining aspects of the case. On the other hand, if we decide either question in N.H.’s favor, the matter will be remanded to develop a factual record.

Regarding whether the certified questions are doubtful, both questions are doubtful because there is no controlling precedent on either and there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion regarding their resolution, as the dissent demonstrates. We conclude that both questions are important and doubtful.

II...