School district seeks dismissal of nonbinary student’s lawsuit

The School District of Rhinelander has filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a federal lawsuit brought by a former student who alleges the district discriminated against them based on gender identity.
In a brief filed November 19, 2025, attorneys for the district argue that recent executive orders issued by President Trump have clarified that Title IX protections extend only to biological sex—male or female—and do not encompass gender identity or nonbinary status.
The lawsuit, which survived an initial motion to dismiss in March 2025, centers on the student’s allegations that the district failed to protect them from persistent harassment and imposed restrictions on their education, including limiting bathroom access and reducing in-person class participation.
Background of the Case
The student, who was assigned female at birth but identifies as nonbinary, informed the district of their changed name and preferred pronouns following a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria in 2018. According to the original complaint, the student faced regular harassment from classmates that faculty members failed to adequately control.

The harassment was particularly severe during physical education classes, ultimately leading the student to drop the course. The student also alleges that between 2019 and 2021, they experienced continued harassment including name-calling, theft, and unauthorized photography.
When the student returned to in-person instruction in October 2021, they were informed they could only use one bathroom at the school—located far from their classes—and were eventually limited to three in-person classes while taking the rest online.
In his March 2025 ruling allowing the case to proceed, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley found that nonbinary students are protected by Title IX against policies that subject them to different treatment than cisgender students. The judge also noted there was a reasonable inference that the district discriminated against the student by prohibiting them from certain classes and limiting in-person instruction rather than addressing the harassment itself.
District’s Arguments for Dismissal
The district’s November filing takes a different approach, centering its defense on executive orders issued by President Trump in January 2025. Executive Order 14,168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” defines “sex” as an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female and states that the term is “not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Attorney Ronald Stadler argues that these executive orders, which he contends have “the force of law,” should be applied retroactively to pending cases. The brief cites precedent establishing that courts must apply the law in effect at the time of their decision unless doing so would result in manifest injustice.
“The executive orders, in conjunction with the February 4, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter, make it abundantly clear that ‘sex’ under Title IX only protects on the basis of being male or female does not encompass gender identity, and that it does not encompass the concept of non-binary,” the brief states.
Alternative Legal Arguments
Even if the court declines to apply the executive orders retroactively, the district presents several alternative arguments for dismissal:
On bathroom access: The district maintains it never denied the student equal access to restrooms. According to the brief, the student voluntarily used a gender-neutral bathroom in the nurse’s office beginning in seventh grade because they felt uncomfortable in both men’s and women’s facilities. The district provided access to a gender-neutral bathroom in the high school and offered to discuss alternatives, which the student never pursued.
On class participation: The district argues the student’s hybrid online-in-person schedule was established at their own request after returning from hospitalization, not as a district-imposed restriction. The brief notes that when the student later requested an additional in-person class, the request was immediately granted.
On harassment claims: While acknowledging some reported incidents, the district contends its responses were reasonable under Title IX standards, which require only that schools respond to known harassment in a manner that is “not clearly unreasonable.” The brief details investigations conducted, conversations with students, and disciplinary actions taken in response to specific complaints.
The district also invokes the Spending Clause’s “clear statement rule,” arguing that public school districts had no notice that discrimination against someone who identifies as nonbinary could constitute sex-based discrimination under Title IX.
“The notion that the School Board could or should have been on notice that its policy of separating male and female bathrooms violates Title IX and its precepts is untenable,” the brief states, quoting from the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in a similar case.
The district points to Title IX regulations that expressly allow separate facilities based on sex, including bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams, arguing these provisions would be meaningless if “sex” were interpreted as a fluid concept.
Plaintiff’s Response
In a brief filed December 10, the plaintiff’s attorney, Brent Eisberner of Levine Eisberner LLC, argues that material factual disputes require the case to proceed to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.
The plaintiff’s response directly challenges the district’s reliance on Trump’s executive orders, arguing they cannot overturn judicial precedent or bypass Congress’s constitutional authority to write and amend statutes.
“The landscape Defendant appears to be asking this court to accept is a judicial system wherein a single individual—the President of the United States—can unilaterally issue an executive order which results in the overturning of legal precedence,” the brief states. “This clearly would violate the separation of powers envisioned by our founders.”
Eisberner notes that executive orders have shifted with administrations—President Biden issued orders in 2021 expanding Title IX protections for gender identity, while President Trump’s 2025 orders aim to narrow them—but argues these changes do not override binding Seventh Circuit precedent in cases like Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District.
The response also points to findings by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which concluded that the district “burdened the victim” and limited the student’s access to educational programming. According to the brief, OCR found that district staff documented only one harassment incident, failed to investigate multiple reports, lacked proper Title IX training, and did not adequately track harassment.
Disputed Facts
The plaintiff’s brief identifies several key factual disputes that it argues must be resolved by a jury:
On the hybrid schedule: the plaintiff contends they were forced into the arrangement due to ongoing harassment, not voluntary difficulty adjusting to in-person learning. “Critically, (the student) was removed from culinary class, the harassers were not,” the brief states. The response cites the court’s earlier observation that “offering remote schooling and therefore denying a transgender student the opportunity to socialize with and learn alongside his classmates is not a true alternative.”
On staff conduct: The brief alleges that staff members repeatedly misgendered the student and would “smirk” when corrected, which the student’s attorneys argue constitutes sex-based disparate treatment under Seventh Circuit law.
On the severity of harassment: the student experienced slurs as well as unauthorized photography attempts, according to the brief. The harassment was severe enough to trigger eating disorders and suicidal ideation, the filing states.
The response also references an expert report concluding that “the district’s actions and inactions directly caused and/or substantially exacerbated (the student’s) psychiatric symptoms and developmental disruption.”
The case comes amid ongoing national debate over transgender and nonbinary student rights in schools. The district’s brief notes that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had previously held in cases like Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District and A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville that transgender students are protected under Title IX.
However, the district argues these precedents may no longer be controlling in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which rejected broad applications of sex stereotyping arguments. The Seventh Circuit has put related appeals on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., which directly addresses whether transgender individuals are protected under Title IX.
Judge Conley must now decide whether genuine disputes of material fact exist that would require a trial, or whether the district is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The legal question of whether executive orders can effectively reinterpret Title IX protections—and whether such reinterpretation should apply retroactively to pending cases—presents a novel constitutional issue that could have implications beyond this case.
The plaintiff ultimately graduated from a different school district after leaving the Rhinelander area.