Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2018).pdf/42

 persuasive justification” for the School Board’s bathroom policy. , 518 U.S. at 556. , 302 F. Supp. 3d at 751 (finding School Board’s privacy argument “[rang] hollow” and was based on conjecture given that the only complaints came from adults, not students (who had shared a restroom with the transgender student for weeks) and because a “‘transgender student’s presence in a restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex’”) (quoting, 858 F.3d at 1052); , 237 F. Supp. 3d at 289–90 (acknowledging school’s obligation to protect student privacy but finding “facts on the ground” revealed school bathroom layout (composed of stalls with locking doors and partitioned urinals) did not pose any