Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2018).pdf/49

 statute there aimed to prevent teen pregnancy and “realistically reflect[ed] the fact that the sexes were not similarly situated” because only women could become pregnant. at 469. , 533 U.S. 53 (2001) is distinguishable for the same reason. 533 U.S. at 59–64 (upholding statute that set different requirements for proving parenthood for men and for women because giving birth is inherent proof of motherhood). No such difference is relevant here. Rather, it is his failure to act in conformity with his sex assigned at birth that is causing the School District to treat Adams differently. , 663 F.3d at 1316 (holding in transgender employment case that “discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender non-conformity constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause”).

The School Board also relies on, 97 F. Supp. 3d 657 (W.D. Pa. 2015), one of a minority of cases to reject an Equal Protection claim by a transgender student regarding bathroom use, and, 203 F. Supp. 3d 615 (M.D. N.C. 2016), which likewise rejected an Equal Protection challenge brought by transgender students and an employee of a state