An overview of the lawsuit filed by transgender sprinter Sadie Schreiner against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), with background and implications.

What happened

Sadie Schreiner, a transgender woman and former NCAA Division III All-American sprinter at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), is suing RPI in New York State Supreme Court (Rensselaer County) for being barred from competing in a women’s track event. (Times Union)

According to the complaint:

• Schreiner registered as an unattached athlete (i.e., not representing a particular school or club) for women’s 200-meter and 400-meter races at RPI’s “Under the Lights” meet on April 8. (law360.com)

• She paid the entry fee and was accepted into the meet via the public website. (Times Union)

• The next day, RPI’s general counsel emailed Schreiner informing her that she would not be allowed to compete — the reason given being that the school believed permitting her to do so would conflict with a federal executive order (Executive Order 14201, signed by Donald Trump) and that the U.S. Department of Education might impose penalties. (law360.com)

• The key allegation is that RPI’s refusal was based on her status as a transgender woman, which she claims violates New York State Human Rights Law (which protects gender identity under “gender” in the statute). (Times Union)

• Specifically, the lawsuit states:

  “Defendant RPI discriminated against Sadie when [it] individually and collectively prohibited Sadie from competing in the women’s 200- and 400-meter race on account of her gender identity and expression.” (law360.com)

• RPI did not ask for Schreiner’s sex or gender before sending this denial email. (law360.com)

• Schreiner’s attorneys argue that the school’s fear of DOE (Department of Education) action and adherence to the executive order cannot override the protections of New York law. (Times Union)

Legal basis and context

• Under New York’s Human Rights Law (NYHRL), discrimination on the basis of “gender identity or expression” is prohibited in places of public accommodation.

• The lawsuit asserts that this law applies to RPI’s open meet. (EDGE Media Network)

• The federal executive order referenced (Executive Order 14201) directed federal agencies to cease funding to schools that allow “biological males” to compete in female sports. RPI cited this order in its denial. (Times Union)

• The complaint argues that even though the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) has changed its transgender eligibility policy (banning transgender women from women’s competitions in many cases), that policy does not excuse state-law violations: “local and state laws still apply and do in fact supersede any NCAA rules,” according to the suit. (law360.com)

• This case therefore pits state anti-discrimination law (protecting transgender persons) against federal directive and institutional policy around athletic eligibility.

Why the case matters

• The case raises questions about who governs athletic eligibility – whether institutions must follow NCAA or federal guidance when state laws protect gender identity.

• It touches on whether an unattached athlete (not representing a college or club) is still subject to NCAA or institutional eligibility rules in the same way as varsity athletes.

• The suit argues yes: her registration as “unattached” should not have triggered exclusion. (EDGE Media Network)

• It highlights the emotional and social stakes for transgender athletes: exclusion from sports can have serious mental-health and equity implications.

• It may set precedent (if the case proceeds) in New York for how colleges handle transgender inclusion in athletic events, especially open meets.

Potential outcomes and issues

• If RPI is found to have violated New York law, it may be required to allow Schreiner (and possibly others) to compete and could face damages for emotional distress and punitive relief. The suit seeks both. (law360.com)

• RPI may defend via argument that it was compelled by federal policy / risk of funding loss — though the suit contends that this cannot override state law.

• The case may involve questions of jurisdiction and standing: whether the federal directive actually mandates exclusion or simply incentivizes it, whether RPI’s internal rules are valid, and whether this case is properly under state law rather than federal.

• The broader policy environment is unsettled: many states have passed laws restricting transgender athletes in girls’/women’s sports; the NCAA has changed its policy; open-meets may operate under different governance than varsity collegiate meets.

Key takeaways

• Sadie Schreiner alleges she was barred from competing in the women’s 200-m and 400-m at RPI because she is transgender.

• RPI says it declined her entry due to concern over compliance with federal order and DOE enforcement.

• The lawsuit frames this as discrimination under New York’s anti-discrimination law.

• The case highlights the tension between institutional/federal policy on transgender athletes and state laws protecting gender identity.

What to watch

• Will the court allow the case to proceed? Will RPI respond with a motion to dismiss or attempt settlement?

• Will the court interpret how federal directives and NCAA policy interact with state anti-discrimination law?

• Will this case influence how colleges structure eligibility rules for open (“unattached”) meets vs. varsity competitions?

• The broader ripple effect: more transgender athletes may bring suits against other institutions citing similar exclusion.