## Facts

- A 15-year-old student (Pat Doe), biologically male and diagnosed with gender identity disorder, attended a public junior high school in Brockton, Massachusetts and lived socially as female.
- Beginning in 1999, Doe wore makeup and feminine clothing and accessories at school to express her female gender identity.
- The school dress code prohibited clothing that could be “disruptive or distractive” to education or affect student safety.
- The principal repeatedly sent Doe home to change when she wore girls’ apparel; at times Doe returned after changing, and at other times she stayed home due to distress.
- School officials later told Doe she would not be allowed to attend if she wore “disruptive” outfits, including skirts, dresses, padded bras (with or without stuffing), and wigs.
- Doe sued school officials and related public entities and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent exclusion or discipline based on her gender-expression clothing.

## Issues

1. Whether Doe’s gender expression through clothing constituted protected student expression, limiting the school’s authority to discipline her.
2. Whether enforcing the dress code to bar feminine clothing for a student viewed as male likely constituted unlawful sex discrimination through enforcement of gender stereotypes.
3. Whether Doe met the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction.
- The school was enjoined from excluding or disciplining Doe for wearing to school any clothing or accessories that any other male or female student could wear without being disciplined.
- Applying the student-speech standard, the court found the school had not shown that Doe’s clothing would materially and substantially disrupt school operations; anticipated negative reactions by others were insufficient.
- The court found Doe faced irreparable harm from exclusion and forced suppression of gender expression, and the balance of harms and public interest favored protecting access to education and constitutional rights.

## Legal Principles

- Student clothing may constitute expressive conduct when it conveys an identity-related message, and schools may restrict it only under the standard governing material and substantial disruption or infringement of others’ rights.
- A school may not justify suppressing protected student expression based on speculative disruption or hostility from other students.
- Discipline aimed at enforcing stereotyped expectations about how boys and girls should appear may support a claim of sex discrimination.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, and equitable balancing consistent with the public interest.

## Conclusion

The court ordered interim relief preventing the public school from barring a transgender student’s gender-expression clothing where the school had not demonstrated the level of disruption required to override protected expression, and where continued enforcement risked serious harm to the student’s education and well-being.


Doe v. Yunits, No. 00-1060A, 2000 WL 33162199 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 11, 2000)