Massapequa district files federal action over state bathroom rules as meeting draws divided public comment

Superintendent William Brennan told the board that “this evening, our district filed a federal action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief arising out of the state's recent actions regarding our bathroom and locker room policies.” He said the district seeks to “address the needs of all students and ensure that every child in our school feels safe, supported, and respected.”

The announcement preceded a sustained public-comment period in which parents, students and local residents sharply disagreed about how the district should balance privacy, safety and inclusion in locker rooms and restrooms. Dozens spoke during the allotted public-comment period; students from Massapequa High School and the AIM campus were prominent among them.

Why it matters: The district’s legal filing formalizes a dispute between local policy choices and recent state guidance, and it drew a large turnout of students and parents on both sides. Board members said they will note public comments for later follow-up rather than engage during the meeting.

In public comment, several students described personal discomfort with changing in mixed settings. “I do not feel comfortable changing in the same locker room as someone the opposite gender,” said Anthony, a tenth-grade student, adding that the district’s policy keeping students in facilities aligned with their biological sex or offering neutral rooms was “the most fair and reasonable solution for everyone.”

Multiple student speakers echoed that concern. “As a teenage girl… I do not feel comfortable changing in the same locker room as someone the opposite gender,” said Ally, a student at the AIM campus. Another student said the current state rule “lets the less than 1% feel comfortable, but in doing so…allows a majority of people to feel uncomfortable.” Those students asked the board to preserve single-sex locker-room spaces while continuing to make gender-neutral facilities available.

Other speakers urged the board to pursue a less adversarial path. Krista Jensen, a Massapequa parent, urged the board to “bring in experts to work with concerned community members” and described the board’s legal action as taking “the easy road” rather than pursuing local mediation. Dr. Jenny Isaacs, a child clinical psychologist and parent, said anti-LGBTQ+ bullying occurs in the district and warned that public confrontation could harm vulnerable students. “Many queer students and their allies are extremely fearful to publicly vocalize the terror they live in,” Isaacs said.

Board president Mrs. Wachter set ground rules for the comment period, reminding speakers that public comment is reserved for current Massapequa residents and that remarks should address school matters and not individual personnel or students. Brennan also said the district had required check-in with identification for those wishing to speak, citing concern about nonresidents attending meetings after social-media posts.

What the board did at the meeting: Brennan’s statement that the district had filed the federal action was presented as an update; the transcript records no district vote at this meeting to initiate litigation. Board members declined to debate the legal strategy at the lectern and instead completed the agenda’s consent and resolutions items.

What was requested or directed: Speakers asked the board to pursue a mixture of solutions — from keeping single-sex locker rooms and providing gender-neutral alternatives to investing in private changing spaces and convening expert-led community dialogues. Several parents and students urged the board to focus on facilities improvements (private changing stalls) rather than litigation.

Context and next steps: Brennan said the district believes “the law is on our side” and that administrators will continue to follow legal counsel; he added the district’s aim is to “do what’s right for our kids and our community.” The board did not provide a timeline in the meeting for further action on the legal matter. The public-comment period closed after roughly the allotted 30 minutes, with the board thanking students for speaking.

Ending: The board concluded public comment and moved to adjourn. Any follow-up from the district on the lawsuit, or changes to local policy in response to state rules or court action, will be reported at future meetings or through official district communications.