Yale files lawsuit against Connecticut in effort to gain more gender neutral bathrooms Law School seeks more gender-neutral facilities

Recommended Video:

NEW HAVEN >> Yale has gender neutral bathrooms in dozens of its buildings, but it is being stopped by a state building committee from redesignating single-user restrooms at the Yale Law School in the same manner.

The university has filed an appeal in Superior Court of the decision of the state Codes and Standards Committee, which agreed with the original ruling of the Office of the State Building Inspector.

The inspector denied Yale’s request this spring for an exemption from the Connecticut State Building Code.

That code requires a certain number of bathrooms in every building be assigned by gender, including single-user restrooms, if that is necessary in order to reach the code required total.

As to existing buildings, the building code prohibits reducing the number of gender designated bathrooms below the number required for new construction.

Yale argues in its suit that it cannot build additional bathrooms because of “programming and space constraints.”

The Yale Law School in New Haven. The Yale Law School in New Haven. Photo: File Photo Photo: File Photo Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Yale files lawsuit against Connecticut in effort to gain more gender neutral bathrooms 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

It also talked about the negative impact construction of more restrooms would have on the “architecturally significant interior spaces” of the Sterling Law Building at 127 Wall St. which was built in the 1920s.

It said the proposed code modification it sought and the use of gender neutral single-use bathrooms would be in accord within a year with the 2018 International Plumbing Code, which will require that they be labeled “for use by either sex.”

The Codes and Standards Committee Appeal Panel, in its findings of facts, said Yale argued that removing sex-specific signage from one set of its multi-user facilities would boost the number of bathrooms open to either sex.

That multi-user facility is now designated for males and Yale planned to eliminate the urinals, so all the stalls would be enclosed.

The committee found that Yale failed to argue that this was evidence of alternative compliance and said its denial was based on the information provided at the hearing.

It also determined that eliminating the urinals may cause accessibility considerations and found that Yale had failed to establish it had a hardship.

The university said the code modification it was seeking had already been adopted by New York CIty, as well as Washington, D.C., Austin, Texas and San Francisco.

It further argues in its suit, that its request is in accord with Connecticut Public Act 2011-55 which amended certain statutes “to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity.”

Gender identity and the use of bathrooms has been a major issue in some states where persons are required to use the bathroom that matches the gender on their birth certificates. This is not the case in Connecticut.

A group of Yale Law School students had advocated for the changes at the law school because most of the existing gender-neutral rest rooms in the building are inconvenient for students who have short breaks between classes. They also said there is a line at the most centrally located bathroom, according to a report by the Yale Daily News.

In its appeal to the Codes and Standards Committee, Yale got the support of Connecticut Voices for Children, A Better Balance, the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers and Yale’s Office of LGBTQ Resources, the paper reported.

The university said it wanted to ameliorate any discomfort some students feel using a gender specific bathroom.

A shift in labeling “would facilitate quick access to a bathroom within the building for persons of all gender identities, eliminate discomfort by trans and gender non-conforming law students in using gender specific rest rooms and promote the equal treatment of trans and gender non-conforming students.”

The suit contends that strict compliance entails “practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and is unwarranted.”