34 C.F.R. § 106.33
Comparable facilities
A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: G.G. Ex Rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016).
G.G. Ex Rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016). “” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . The Department recently delineated how this regulation should be applied to transgender individuals.”
Drew Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., Florida, 57 F.4th 791 (11th Cir. 2022). “§§ 1681 (a), 1686; 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . Regardless of whether Adams argues that the bathroom policy itself violates USCA11 Case: 18-13592 Document: 304-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2022 Page: 43 of 150 18-13592 Opinion of the Court 43 Title IX’s general prohibition against sex…”
Drew Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty. Florida, 968 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2020). “” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . The School Board argues Mr.”
Bd. of Educ. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 208 F. Supp. 3d 850 (S.D. Ohio 2016). “” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . Over the past several years, DOE has issued several guidance documents explaining the agency’s interpretation of Title IX and its implementing regulations with respect to transgender students.”
State v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 3d 810 (N.D. Tex. 2016). “Instead, they argue one of Title IX’s initial implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 (“§ 106.33” or “Section 106.”
Roe v. Critchfield, 137 F.4th 912 (9th Cir. 2025). “A Department of Education regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 , ROE V. CRITCHFIELD 25 states: “A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities…”
Joel Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518 (3rd Cir. 2018). “34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . DeJohn v. Temple Univ.”
Evancho v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 3d 267 (W.D. Pa. 2017). “■ By formal regulation, the Department of Education' has stated that segregating school restroom and locker room/shower room facilities based on “sex” is not'prohibited by Title IX so long as those facilities are fundamentally equal.”
Drew Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty. Florida, 3 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021). “” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . Whether the Board violated Title IX turns on the answer to one question: what does “sex” mean in Title IX? Regardless of whether separating bathrooms by sex would otherwise constitute discrimination “on the basis of sex,” 20 U.”
Parents for Privacy v. William Barr, 949 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2020). “§ 1686 , and that Title IX’s implementing regulations specifically authorize providing separate but comparable “toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . Plaintiffs further argue that Title IX’s text and its legislative history make…”
A.H. v. Minersville Area Sch. Dist., 290 F. Supp. 3d 321 (M.D. Penn. 2017). “Consistent with Title IX, an education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance "may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities…”
Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2018). “" 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 . To prove his claim here, Adams must demonstrate that (1) he was subjected to discrimination in an educational program or activity; (2) the discrimination was "on the basis of sex;" (3) the School Board receives federal funding; and (4) the discrimination…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.