A new lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court aims to dismantle key LGBTQ antidiscrimination protections, threatening the rights and dignity of countless Pennsylvanians. Spearheaded by two public school districts—South Side Area in Beaver County and Knoch in Butler County—along with Republican state Reps. Aaron Bernstine and Barbara Gleim, and a handful of parents and students, the case challenges a 2023 regulation that expanded the definition of sex discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
The plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit are South Side Area School District in Beaver County, Knoch School District in Butler County, State Representatives Aaron Bernstine (R, Butler & Lawrence Counties) and Barbara Gleim (R, Cumberland County), Perkiomen Valley School Board Director Jason Saylor, and parents Beth Ann Rosica and Alexandra Pasternak.
If successful, this lawsuit would strip the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission of its authority to investigate LGBTQ discrimination cases, making it harder for queer and trans individuals to seek justice in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Beyond that, the plaintiffs’ attorneys claim a favorable ruling would effectively ban transgender student-athletes from participating in high school sports.
LGBTQ advocacy organizations and civil rights defenders swiftly condemned the lawsuit, calling it a blatant attempt to erase hard-won progress.
“This cruel filing in Commonwealth Court is part of the continued assault on the progress and civil rights of vulnerable LGBTQ Pennsylvanians. We believe that this petition grounded in baseless, overly litigated, and false tropes should be swiftly thrown out of state court,” said the Pennsylvania Youth Congress, a state-wide LGBTQ advocacy organization.
The argument at the center of the case rests on the notion that the PHRC overstepped its authority by interpreting “sex discrimination” to include LGBTQ identities. However, as civil rights defenders point out, federal precedent strongly supports these protections.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the definition of sex under Title VII. In Bostock v. Clayton County, our top federal court found that discrimination on the basis of sex is rooted in sex stereotyping—negative actions against someone for not aligning with what one person subjectively feels is masculine or feminine enough,” PYC continued.
Advocates warn that if the plaintiffs’ arguments are taken to their logical conclusion, they could open the door to extreme discrimination against anyone who does not conform to rigid, outdated gender norms.
“Do these plaintiffs fully grasp the implications of their filings? The arguments put forth in this petition posit a dangerous demand on all Pennsylvanians. If taken to their logical conclusion, they suggest that a woman wearing pants instead of a dress could be denied service at a restaurant or that a man without a sufficiently thick beard or deep voice could be refused employment. This is sex stereotyping—enforcing outdated and factually incorrect notions of what is a ‘correct’ gender identity and sexual orientation,” PYC explained.
While some opponents of LGBTQ rights argue that the Pennsylvania General Assembly never intended for “sex” to be defined in this inclusive way, advocates counter that Pennsylvania lawmakers never explicitly defined the term in 1955. As such, the interpretation should be guided by legal precedent.
Despite Republican lawmakers’ repeated efforts to block LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections, Pennsylvanians overwhelmingly support them. The Pennsylvania Youth Congress has found that while just over 20 school districts have adopted anti-trans policies, more than 120 districts have explicitly included gender identity in their nondiscrimination protections.
“A majority of Pennsylvanians support the passage of LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination legislation in the General Assembly, which means the public backs the current protections in place,” their release states.
The Pennsylvania legislature had the opportunity to block this regulation and chose not to—further proving that it was properly enacted through the state’s regulatory process.
For those bringing this lawsuit, attacking LGBTQ youth through legal channels may serve as an effective political stunt. But for young queer and trans Pennsylvanians, the consequences are far more severe.
“Attacking LGBTQ youth through legal punches may selfishly advance some careers and boost fundraising, but it comes at a lethal and inhumane cost. Many young LGBTQ Pennsylvanians will see this case and wonder if their state is a safe place where they can simply exist,” PYC warns.
The legal battle over LGBTQ rights in Pennsylvania is nothing new. The Pennsylvania Youth Congress and ACLU have successfully defended these protections in court before—including in the Boyertown case, where they defeated similar anti-trans arguments from conservative legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Independence Law Center.
“For Boyertown and now in South Side, the endgame argument that there is catastrophic harm to straight or cisgender people by letting LGBTQ Pennsylvanians breathe and walk down the street with equality is a losing one,” their statement concludes.
As this lawsuit moves through the courts, LGBTQ advocates remain committed to ensuring that Pennsylvania remains a state where all people—regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation—are treated with dignity and fairness.
