Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) has officially responded to a federal lawsuit filed by two Stone Bridge High School students, providing the first detailed look into its investigation of a locker room incident from March. The school division's court filing defends its decision to suspend the students for 10 days, arguing they violated Title IX through sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment against a transgender classmate.
In its memorandum opposing the students' request for a preliminary injunction, LCPS outlines the scope of its investigation and rejects the students' claims that their actions were protected speech or that they were disciplined because of their Christian faith.
Key Takeaways
- LCPS filed a legal response to a lawsuit from two suspended Stone Bridge High School students.
- The division's Title IX Office found the students guilty of sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment.
- The investigation involved interviews with 19 students and five staff members.
- LCPS argues the students' behavior constituted a months-long pattern of harassment, not protected speech.
- The school division also dismissed claims of religious discrimination, stating a third student was not disciplined due to a lack of evidence, not his Muslim faith.
Details of the LCPS Investigation
Loudoun County Public Schools' legal filing reveals that its internal investigation was extensive. According to the document, division administrators conducted interviews with 19 students and five staff members to gather information about the March incident and the events leading up to it. The school division noted that an additional 21 students declined to participate in the interviews.
The findings from these interviews were then submitted to a panel of what LCPS describes as "three independent decision-makers." The identities of these individuals have not been publicly released. This panel reviewed the evidence and concluded that both students were responsible for violating school board policy.
Investigation by the Numbers
- 19 students interviewed
- 5 staff members interviewed
- 21 students declined to be interviewed
- 3 independent decision-makers reviewed the findings
- 2 violations found: sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment
The decision-makers' reports, dated August 15, 2025, determined that the evidence supported the conclusion that the students had subjected the transgender student to a hostile environment. This finding formed the basis for their 10-day suspensions.
Allegations of Harassment and Discrimination
The core of the case revolves around a complaint filed by a transgender student at Stone Bridge High School. The student alleged that the two boys, along with a third student, repeatedly harassed him for using the boys' locker room.
According to the LCPS filing, the harassment included referring to the transgender student as "it" and "girl-boy." The school division stated that witness testimony corroborated that this behavior was not an isolated incident but had been occurring for "much of the school year." The transgender student also alleged the boys threatened to physically harm him, but LCPS noted that its investigation did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate this specific claim.
Understanding School Board Policy 8035
The students were found in violation of School Board Policy 8035, which addresses nondiscrimination and the prohibition of harassment. This policy is designed to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students and is aligned with federal Title IX requirements, which prohibit sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding.
LCPS asserted that the students' actions escalated after they were notified of the Title IX investigation. The school division characterized the students' subsequent complaint against the transgender student as a "counter-attack" launched when they feared facing discipline. The investigation into the boys' complaint found no merit in their claims, according to the filing.
First Amendment and Religious Freedom Claims
In their lawsuit, the suspended students argued that their speech was protected by the First Amendment and that they were disciplined for expressing their Christian beliefs. LCPS directly challenges these claims in its response.
The school division contends that the students' behavior was not a protest of school policy but a direct effort to harass a specific individual. The filing states their speech is not protected because it was intended to "harass and embarrass" the transgender student.
"If the Respondents’ goal was truly to express their discomfort... then repeating their questions at a loud volume over weeks and months typically outside the presence of any authority figure does not align with that description," the decision-makers' report stated, as quoted in the filing.
LCPS further argues that First Amendment protections are more limited within a school setting compared to a public forum. The filing cites previous legal cases that have established schools' authority to restrict speech that disrupts the educational environment or infringes on the rights of other students.
Dismissal of Religious Discrimination Argument
The students' lawsuit also highlighted that a third student involved, who is reportedly Muslim, was not disciplined, suggesting that their Christian faith was a factor in their punishment. LCPS called this allegation "fiction, created after-the-fact."
The school division explained that the case against the third student was dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Investigators reviewed video recordings and found that the third student did not make the same comments as the other two, did not speak as loudly, and witness testimony did not corroborate the allegations against him. The filing concludes that the decision was based on evidence, not religion.
The Court's Injunction and Next Steps
Despite the arguments from LCPS, the court did grant the students' request for a preliminary injunction, which temporarily halts their suspensions while the lawsuit proceeds. However, the judge's decision came with a significant condition.
The judge noted that the boys' claims had "significant weaknesses" and required them to post a $125,000 deposit before the injunction would be granted. This financial requirement often indicates that the court believes the party requesting the injunction may not ultimately succeed on the merits of their case and could be liable for damages incurred by the opposing party.
LCPS had formally asked the court to deny the stay, stating that the students' claims "are based on allegations which have been concocted after-the-fact and are without merit." The case will now continue to move through the federal court system, with this initial filing from LCPS providing a detailed foundation for the school division's defense.