A portion of a lengthy ruling authored by Judge Jasmine Yoon of the Western District of Virginia, issued on Monday in Doe v. Albemarle County School Bd.
Plaintiff J. Doe is a nonbinary pupil enrolled at a high school operated by the Albemarle County School Board (ACSB). Doe has wrestled with gender dysphoria for as long as they can remember, and the friction stemming from their birth sex and repeated misgendering has produced pronounced anxiety symptoms.
In September 2025, a Turning Point USA (“TPUSA”) student group at Western Albemarle High School (“WAHS”) told the principal that it planned to bring in guest speaker Victoria Cobb for an event titled “Two Genders: One Truth.” Cobb, who leads a Christian lobbying organization, has publicly challenged gender-affirming measures and denied that gender identity is fixed. After facing community pushback and demand letters on both sides of the issue, ACSB permitted the event to proceed as a club meeting during lunch, with voluntary attendance, so long as the gathering remained orderly and respectful. The club distributed promotional flyers around the campus in the lead-up to the event.
Doe filed suit, arguing that ACSB’s decision to permit the TPUSA club to host and promote the Event amounted to deliberate indifference to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment. While the court rejected the claim on the facts, it held that allowing the event could have created a subjectively hostile educational environment:
Here, the claim that there are only two genders—expressed through the Event’s title and its surrounding context—negates the very existence of Doe’s gender identity. The Speaker’s prior public remarks about gender identity and the Club’s past petition opposing transgender girls using girls’ restrooms make clear that the “Two Genders: One Truth” Event and the Speaker’s message resist recognizing and supporting nonbinary and gender-diverse identities.
The complaint contends that Doe was exposed to this message via flyers posted “on every wall” of the school for five days before the Event, three days of morning announcements and daily bulletins, and the Speaker’s statements to Doe and hundreds of their classmates. See Complaint (alleging that the Speaker claimed “policies allowing transgender individuals to use the restrooms and/or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity posed a safety risk,” “that policies should be rooted only in biological sex, not gender,” and “that individuals cannot transition genders and that this is a matter of basic biology”).) Moreover, a student who attended the Event reportedly stated that “at a hood school, these trannies would get beaten up,” a remark that utilizes insulting together with demeaning language.
ACSB contends that the Speaker’s remarks do not amount to harassment because Doe “does not allege that Ms. Cobb delivered her statements in an aggressive fashion or in a manner that mocked or ridiculed transgender or gender-diverse individuals.” Yet ACSB offers no legal authority requiring that harassment only arises when the speaker adopts an aggressive or mocking tone. Rather, the core message—that Doe’s gender identity is invalid or absent—is inherently offensive, “degrading” and humiliating toward Doe, no matter how the message is delivered.
Courts beyond this one have likewise acknowledged the emotional and mental harm produced by statements or symbols opposing certain gender identities or sexual orientations, without focusing on the manner of delivery. In L.M. v. Town of Middleborough (First Circuit, 2024), the First Circuit held that a school could compel a seventh grader to remove a shirt bearing the phrase “There Are Only Two Genders” without violating the First Amendment. The court reasoned that even this silent expression, not aimed at specific students, can carry a “demeaning nature” with a tendency to poison the educational atmosphere. It also noted officials’ awareness of the serious struggles, including thoughts of self-harm, that some students experienced in relation to their gender identities and how these struggles could affect their ability to learn.
The court observed that the message is not at the far end of demeaning, yet it nevertheless “denies the self-conceptions of certain middle-school students” whose identities are rooted as deeply as those based on faith, race, sex, or sexual orientation. See, e.g., Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2006), vacated as moot by Harper ex rel. Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) (describing a T-shirt that read “Homosexuality is Shameful” as demeaning, harmful to LGBTQ students, and a psychological attack that could lead youths to question their self-worth and place in society); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding a school rule prohibiting “(1) derogatory comments on (2) unchangeable or deeply rooted personal characteristics that most people—including adolescents—are highly sensitive to”).
While many of these precedents do not involve Title IX claims and thus do not directly decide whether the Event and its promotion meet Title IX’s sex-based harassment standard, they emphasize the humiliation and offensiveness of language that denies the existence of transgender or gender-diverse identities. Offensive verbal statements alone can constitute sex-based harassment, and statements not targeted at the plaintiff can still support such a finding.
The court also considered the possibility that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile environment:
To satisfy Title IX, harassment must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it “undermines and detracts from the victim’s educational experience,” effectively denying equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities. ACSB contends that “Doe does not plausibly allege that the speaker event and its promotion created an ‘environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive’.” …
Here, the amended complaint plausibly alleges that Doe perceived the Event’s promotion, the views expressed during the Event, and the ensuing commentary as hostile and abusive. The Speaker’s stated belief that Doe’s gender identity does not exist is profoundly demeaning to Doe and to other gender-diverse students. See Fellers v. Kelley (D.N.H. 2025) (“[T]he symbolic message [opposing transgender girls’ participation in girls’ sports] included a demeaning and harassing assertion—an assertion of inauthenticity, falsity and nonexistence regarding some students’ core and immutable traits (their gender identities). It also seems evident that if the symbols had been worn by students at school or during school activities, they could be prohibited as reasonably interpreted in context to convey a harassing, demeaning message likely to have a serious negative psychological impact on students who identify as transgender.“)
Doe asserts that the Event’s message—conveyed through the promotional materials and the event itself—caused them considerable anxiety and discomfort. They have “broke down in tears, questioning why their gender identity—who they are—offends others.” This suffices to plausibly support Doe’s subjective view that the promotion and the Event were hostile and abusive.
To prove an objective reasonable belief that the surroundings were hostile, a plaintiff must show that the environment was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, in a way that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s educational setting. … Because the speaker is an adult, her remarks to students—denying the existence of the students’ gender identities and insisting that policies should be rooted solely in biological sex—might be more harmful than if the remarks came from fellow students. On the other hand, Cobb is not a WAHS instructor, and Doe does not allege any additional power or influence she may hold over Doe or other gender-diverse pupils.
Even though attendance at the Event was optional, it occurred at lunchtime in the same building where Doe and other gender-diverse youth were required to be present. When you include the promotional period and subsequent radio show remarks, the amended complaint claims the harassing messaging persisted for more than a week. (See Complaint (alleging that the Club leaders made statements on a post-Event radio program asserting there are “only two genders” and describing Doe’s legal claims as “absolutely ridiculous”).) {Although these remarks were not spoken on campus, the Fourth Circuit has recognized that online or off-campus statements can be relevant to Title IX sex-based harassment claims.} The student’s remark made during the Event—that “at a hood school, these trannies would get beaten up”—adds to an objectively hostile perception toward Doe.
Yet the court rejected the Title IX claim on the basis that Doe had not adequately alleged a deprivation of “equal access to educational opportunities or benefits” due to the situation:
For sex-based harassment to be actionable under Title IX, the plaintiff must plead facts giving a plausible inference that the harassment deprived them of equal access to educational opportunities or benefits. A deprivation of access may be shown in at least three ways: (1) the harassment physically excludes the victim from an educational program or activity; (2) it so undermines or detracts from the victim’s educational experience that it effectively denies them equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities; or (3) it produces a concrete, negative effect on the victim’s ability to participate in an educational program or activity. …
Doe reports increasing anxiety and distress after the promotion and authorization of the Event. They describe the targeted nature of the Event as taking an emotional toll. The amended complaint details some of the mental and emotional distress consequences, including: (1) feeling emotionally and intellectually exhausted, (2) experiencing anxiety and gender dysphoria symptoms that hinder active participation in school, (3) bearing an emotional burden that compelled Doe to push harder to engage in school programs and activities and (4) engaging less in classroom discussions due to fear of expressing their views around supporters of denying their existence.
The amended complaint does not allege a physical exclusion from any educational program or activity, nor does it claim that Doe is barred from participating in such programs or activities. Therefore, Doe must plausibly allege that the harassment had some other concrete, negative effect on their ability to take part in the school’s offerings. Regarding tangible effects on school participation or access, Doe asserts they have participated less in class discussions after the Event. This is not enough to claim a concrete impact on their ability to engage with the educational opportunities and benefits provided by ACSB….
The court also concluded that the school defendants did not act with deliberate indifference by responding in a manner that was clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, a prerequisite for Title IX liability:
Here, the alleged facts indicate that ACSB did not merely sit idly by in the face of known harassment. Instead, the record shows a sequence of steps taken by its leadership. First, Sublette met with the Club and suggested that gender identity is a nuanced and controversial topic, proposing that the event take place after school hours. Shortly thereafter, ACPS issued a community message signed by Haas and others emphasizing the voluntary nature of the event, highlighting expectations of respectful conduct and nondiscrimination, and recognizing students’ First Amendment rights to assemble. ACSB leaders spoke at the October 9 board meeting, after which the floor was opened to public comment. Finally, ACSB arranged for police/security presence at WAHS during the Event.
The court must decide whether Doe plausibly alleges that ACSB’s actions were “clearly unreasonable.” The Supreme Court has noted that it is entirely reasonable for a school to refrain from disciplinary steps that would expose it to constitutional or statutory claims. … The board’s potential exposure to constitutional actions is one factor among several in assessing whether the response, as alleged, was clearly unreasonable. Had the Event been canceled, the Board would likely have faced lawsuits from the authors of the initial demand letter. {While the court does not express a view on the merits of any First Amendment claims against ACSB, it remains mindful of its prior description. These legal questions—the balance of First Amendment rights with the goal of safeguarding vulnerable students from demeaning language in school—are intricate.}
And when weighing (1) the threats of First Amendment claims against ACSB; (2) the intricate, contentious nature of the applicable free-speech doctrine; and (3) the fact that many reports to ACSB focused on anticipated rather than ongoing harassment; Doe’s allegations do not raise a plausible inference that ACSB’s choice to permit the Event to proceed—at lunchtime, with voluntary attendance, and with heightened security—was clearly unreasonable… [And] Doe does not allege other measures ACSB could have taken that would not implicate any First Amendment concerns….
{The line about an unidentified student made … at the Event, stating “these trannies would get beaten up.” Even if this remark constitutes a true threat, it does not create liability for the reasons explained in Subsection III.A.2.i; Doe does not allege that ACSB had knowledge of students making such statements [redacted].}
I personally believe that such events, and their promotion, ought to be safeguarded as First Amendment activity, even if they distress some students because of their gender identity. I also doubt that Title IX should be read as extending to cover these events, even if certain students feel upset by them. Nonetheless, the court’s analysis on the merits is intricate and worthy of consideration, and I have chosen to share it for what it reveals about the legal landscape.
Brian Peter Ettari, Jeremy D. Capps, et al. (Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman) defend the school board; Michael Benjamin Sylvester and Joshua Arthur Hetzler (Founding Freedoms Law Center) defend Cobb.
