The Missouri Supreme Court’s recent rejection of a transgender student’s sex discrimination claim has legal experts questioning the court’s reliance on a 2002 Webster’s Dictionary definition of “sex.”
The case centers on a student in the Blue Springs School District identified as R.M.A., who was assigned female at birth and has female genitalia. R.M.A. transitioned from female to male in 2009 while in fourth grade, legally changed his name in 2010 and received an amended birth certificate in 2014 that listed his sex as male.
Despite those legal recognitions, the Blue Springs School District denied the student’s request to use the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, when he was in eighth and ninth grade.
R.M.A. filed a lawsuit in 2015. A trial court dismissed the case in 2016, but in 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that he had the right to sue under the Missouri Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on “sex.”
At a 2021 trial, a jury found the district had discriminated against R.M.A. and awarded him $175,000 in compensatory damages, plus $4 million in punitive damages. But the trial judge overturned the jury’s verdict, ruling that R.M.A.’s attorneys had failed to prove a critical element: that his “male sex was a contributing factor” in the district’s refusal to grant him access to boys’ restrooms and locker rooms.
An appellate court later reinstated the jury’s ruling. But on June 10, in a 5-2 ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court sided with the trial judge and dismissed the case. The court concluded that R.M.A. was not discriminated against because he is male, but rather because of his female genitalia.
The court emphasized that the Missouri Human Rights Act “does not cover claims based on gender identity.” It also criticized the use of the term “legal sex,” calling it a “misnomer” that is more comparable with the term “gender” and therefore inappropriate to be included under the law’s public accommodation protections.
“Every single year, for the last several years in the Missouri legislature, a bill has been introduced to make it so the Missouri Human Rights Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity,” explained attorney Bevis Schock on Monday’s Legal Roundtable edition of St. Louis on the Air. “It's failed every single time.”
“We're a conservative state; we're a red state,” Schock continued. “That's just how it is, and I think that what this opinion says is that, unless and until the legislature acts, discrimination on the basis of gender identity will be going nowhere in the state of Missouri.”
That reasoning doesn’t ring true for attorney Mary Anne Sedey.
“We have both a U.S. Supreme Court decision and a Missouri Supreme Court decision interpreting the Missouri Human Rights Act, which have already said that this kind of discrimination is cognizable under both the federal law and the Human Rights Act,” Sedey said. “The Supreme Court says it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
Sedey also pointed out that the Missouri Supreme Court’s reliance on a 2002 definition of “sex” in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is problematic. The definition establishes a binary between female and male “on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.”
“We all know now that sex or gender is a continuum,” Sedey said. “It's a very big concept made up of a lot of things. … We honestly know a lot more about this topic than what Webster's Dictionary said in 2002, and the plaintiff had a well regarded expert who testified about her client.”
Attorney Erica Slater is concerned that a jury verdict in favor of R.M.A. was overturned.
“We had 12 people sworn in, and they were able to render a verdict in the case,” Slater said. “That is one thing that concerns me about this case — the willingness to overturn a jury verdict on something that had become a fact issue.”
“They’re kind of stepping on their own robe here,” she said, noting that the court also used a dictionary definition of sex that included “male or female social norms.” Slater added, “The two dissenting judges, [W. Brent] Powell and [Paul] Wilson, are saying the jury heard enough information to have believed even if you use your definition of sex, that this child was discriminated [against] based on his male sex.”
The Legal Roundtable also discussed the City of St. Louis’ $450,000 settlement with the family of a visiting teen volleyball player whose legs were amputated after a 2023 car crash — a sum, the family says, was far too small and didn’t come quickly enough. Other cases discussed include the family of a St. Louis County woman suing her former sorority over a suicide they say was caused by hazing — and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s attempts to remove St. Louis Sheriff Alfred Montgomery from office.
To hear the Legal Roundtable, listen to St. Louis on the Air on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or click the play button below.
“St. Louis on the Air” brings you the stories of St. Louis and the people who live, work and create in our region. The show is produced by Miya Norfleet, Emily Woodbury, Danny Wicentowski, Elaine Cha and Alex Heuer. Darrious Varner is our production assistant. The audio engineer is Aaron Doerr.
