John Does v. Open Bathroom Doors
73 U.Va 2 (2020)
Justice Jones delivered the opinion of the Court.
We’ve all heard of the open-air office. Great spaces where you can collaborate and be super nosy about your colleagues’ lives. But should this nosiness extend to places you normally don’t want to smell? This court affirmatively answers the question with a no. Just shut the door.
It is Tuesday. You are sitting in the library by the windows facing the JAG school. You’re a 3L, you don’t have a care in the world despite the global pandemic,[1] and so you don’t notice that you’ve sat a little too close to the bathroom. All of a sudden, you see a poor 1L walk past you a little too fast. Tragedy is about to strike. Because this 1L has had too much Chipotle. Now you realize it. The bathroom doors have been kept open. You hear it. At first the sound strikes like a polite car horn when someone hasn’t noticed a traffic light turned green. But then the noise crescendos. You wonder if you’re still hearing the 1L, or if there’s a recreation of the Battle of the Somme going on at the JAG school. The Guns of August continue firing until finally, they stop. But it is not over. Just like World War I, the artillery barrage is followed by noxious gas. A defeated, sad 1L emerges, looking like he wishes his mask covered more of his face. Rumor has it that that 1L switched all his classes entirely online that same day.
Plaintiffs, an entire class of people who suffered just like our poor 1L,[2] filed suit alleging a violation of their fundamental right to privacy, their right to not be heard,[3] and their right to shut the freakin’ door, man. This is not the first time the administration has been reprimanded by this Court for bathroom-related privacy violations. See Students’ Bodies v. The Overbroad Crack in Bathroom Stall Doors, 223 U. Va 281. (2019).
The defendants make several arguments on appeal. First, they argue that open-air bathrooms are necessary to prevent the spread of disease. However, as my travelers on Oregon Trail so tragically discovered when they died of dysentery, bathrooms on the open road are ineffective at preventing the spread of disease. Next, defendants contend that there have been no real damages inflicted on plaintiffs. While the Court’s knowledge of damages is limited (sparky-sparky boom-boom means big cash money, we all know from the Supreme Court’s virtual hearings what a big deal a single flush can become.[4] Finally, defendants muster an equal treatment under the law argument. If plaintiffs’ online Zoom counterparts can use the bathroom in the middle of their classes, then clearly the in-person student must take the same open-air approach or the curve will be thrown off. To which we say: Equality does not apply to bathrooms. That’s why some bathrooms have urinals and their cakes while others go without.
The dissent uses a bunch of fancy words that the Court doesn’t have the energy to pretend it understands now that I’m a 3L.[5] What is a boogie, some kind of French hat? The dissent also brings up the standing of plaintiffs. But in bathroom-related affairs, standing is not the point. The point, in fact, can be accomplished with no standing at all. Therefore, the requirement of standing is waived.
Never has there been such a traumatic bathroom incident since the time I was in kindergarten and the bathroom door broke, locking me in.[6] On that day, I swore to never let something like that happen again if I became a Petty Justice. So, here we are. Injunctive relief is granted, and the doors must close.
TONSETH, J., dissenting.
As this Court’s sole remaining bastion for textualism and the proper administration of the judicial system, I vehemently dissent.
1L Gunners v. Every-One Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019) provides a baseline rule here: 1Ls always lose. There goes over a third of the plaintiffs here. Further, another third of 2L/3Ls aren’t attending in person, see COVID-19 v. Students, 20 U.Va 20 (2020). This reduces the original class of Plaintiffs to a generous number of three hundred. As this Court has previously ruled, see Lululemon v. Athleta, 315 U.Va 18 (2019), law students are too boujee to wear knock-off workout clothes, let alone use a public restroom. It is obvious the majority has ignored the basic prerequisite for having a case on this docket: standing.
Justice Jones, sitting on his ivory throne as a 3L, relies on the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure: We do what we want, Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers 369 U.Va 96 (2019). Apparently, this arrogance also ignores that the plaintiffs have a legitimate claim. This Court has wisely held that “emotional distress is a harm within the risk of attending law school.” 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22, 24 (2019).
Ignoring these otherwise rather important procedural aspects, this case is correctly decided on the merits. The Law School’s open-door policy, applying only to bathroom entrances, yet not bathroom stalls or the administration’s offices, is both arbitrary and capricious. If I learned anything from having to trudge through Justice Scalia’s numerous dissents in Con Law, it is that the role of the judiciary isn’t to make policy. However, this decision is based on sheer decency. A right to privacy may be contentious, but law students already struggle enough under pressure. See 1Ls v. Flex Exams, 309 U.Va 73 (2020), (granting an injunction against virtual proctors on 1L spring exams, although the exams were pass/fail, due to the likelihood 1Ls would clam up worse than they do when trying to talk about anything other than law school to friends back home). It would be inhumane to allow the administration to inflict more pressure on students, especially when performance and relaxation is critical here.
But because I can dissent, I do.
---
jmj3vq@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] An astute reader might question the veracity of this story based on the fact that a 3L is in the library in August. To which we say: “tongue sticking out with eyes closed emoji.”
[2] No sound that emerges from the bathroom when it shouldn’t is too small for a plaintiff to not be included. You might call this the “trickle down” effect.
[3] See Professors Who Cold Call 3Ls v. Feb. Club (2018) (holding that the right to not be heard is fundamental, and, in the case of 3Ls, a social duty).
[4] For an in-depth discussion of who flushed (Justice Breyer), see Ashley Feinberg, Investigation: I Think I Know Which Justice Flushed, slate, May 8, 2020. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/toilet-flush-supreme-court-livestream.html.
[5] Nor does the Court have the energy to maintain consistent pronoun use when referring to myself.
[6] This is a true story. The fire department had to come and everything.