## Facts

- A public middle school implemented a program offering some single-sex classes (all-boys or all-girls) alongside coeducational classes in the same subjects.
- In the 2007–2008 school year, some students were initially placed into single-sex classes without advance parental choice; the program later provided an opt-out into coeducational sections.
- Student plaintiffs, on behalf of a certified class of students, challenged the program under Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and Kentucky sex-equity law.
- Plaintiffs sought damages for 2007–2008 and declaratory and injunctive relief against continued operation of the program.
- Plaintiffs asserted injury based on (i) exposure to a school offering sex-separated classes, (ii) exclusion of boys from all-girls classes and girls from all-boys classes, and (iii) alleged inferiority of coeducational sections (e.g., larger classes or reduced instructional quality).
- The school district contended that participation was optional after revision and that substantially equal coeducational alternatives were available to all students.

## Issues

1. Whether the student plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge an optional single-sex program where coeducational alternatives were available and plaintiffs did not show concrete, individualized harm.
2. Whether plaintiffs could recover compensatory damages for the 2007–2008 school year based on alleged harms from assignment to, or exposure to, the program.

## Decision

- The court granted the school district’s request for judgment on standing grounds and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs failed to show a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact traceable to the challenged program and redressable by the requested relief.
- The court rejected standing based on the program’s mere existence, given the availability of coeducational classes to all students.
- Allegations that coeducational sections were inferior were unsupported by the evidentiary record, including expert submissions indicating no material pedagogical differences.
- Plaintiffs did not establish compensable damages attributable to the 2007–2008 implementation of the program.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way; generalized objections to a policy are insufficient.
- Access to substantially equal educational alternatives can defeat claims of injury premised on exclusion from educational opportunity.
- An asserted stigma or harm based solely on awareness of a challenged classification is insufficient absent a concrete, individualized deprivation.
- When plaintiffs cannot establish standing, a federal court must dismiss without reaching the merits of statutory or constitutional claims.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the class challenge to the middle school’s single-sex program because plaintiffs did not prove a concrete, individualized injury from an optional program that offered coeducational alternatives, and they likewise failed to show compensable harm for the 2007–2008 school year.


A.N.A. v. Breckinridge Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 833 F. Supp. 2d 673 (W.D. Ky. 2011)