Parents and advocacy groups urge District 128 to change gender-support policies after alleged locker-room incident

Several residents told the District 128 Board of Education on Aug. 25 that the district’s gender support guidelines pose safety and legal risks and urged the board to change them.

The concerns were raised during the meeting’s public-comment period by Marnie Navarro, who identified herself as “a District 128 taxpayer, lawyer, and incoming parent,” and by Marcia McClurg, who identified herself as “a chapter leader of Moms for Liberty here in Lake County, Illinois.” Both speakers described disturbing events and legal concerns they said stem from the district’s current policies.

Why it matters: Commenters said the policy’s provisions allowing students to access facilities and activities consistent with their gender identity could permit biological males into girls’ private spaces and that the district risks federal funding and litigation if the policies conflict with federal law.

In her remarks, Marnie Navarro described an incident she said occurred on Aug. 29, 2024, at Libertyville High School: “an 18 year old adult male student walked into the Libertyville High School girls locker room unannounced and with no warning to the parents or girls and began to change and observe numerous minor girls.” Navarro said several girls and parents who reported the event were told “that the girls were the problem,” and she said parents were told the girls could move to an alternate location instead.

Navarro emphasized legal risk: “There is no ambiguity here. District 128 is in daily violation of federal law and risks loss of our 1,700,000.0 federal funding dollars, federal prosecution, civil lawsuits, and yet more costly attorney's fees.” She also referenced Title IX and said the district is unlawfully following Illinois State Board of Education guidance rather than federal law.

Marcia McClurg urged the board to follow other districts that have revised policies, saying the district’s categories for access to facilities and curriculum “remain in violation of federal law” and expressing concern about parental notification and opt-out procedures. She quoted policy language she said was in District 128 materials describing access to “gender restrooms, locker rooms, fine and performing arts programs, and athletic performance programs” and saying students “have the right to be addressed by name and pronoun corresponding to identity they exclusively and consistently assert at the school.”

What the board did: The comments were part of the public-comment period; no board action, vote, or policy change occurred at the meeting. The board did not announce any immediate changes to district policy during the session.

Context and caveats: Commenters cited federal law (Title IX), the “Cardona decision,” and a January 2025 executive order in describing the legal landscape. Those references were made by public speakers during comments; the transcript records their claims but the board did not present legal findings or a staff recommendation at the meeting. The board’s posted agenda included an item for “board policies for a second reading and adoption,” which the board approved later in the meeting, but speakers’ comments about gender policy were offered during public comment and were not the subject of a board motion at this session.

Voices quoted in this article spoke during the Aug. 25 public-comment period and are documented in the meeting transcript.