Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

02-1672 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Mar. 29, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55842

Description

Girls’ Basketball Coach Who Was Fired After He Complained About Unequal Access to Athletic Equipment and Funding Has a Private Right of Action to Sue Under Title IX

Abstract

The Supreme Court held that Title IX’s private right of action encompasses claims of retaliation against an individual because he has complained about sex discrimination. After petitioner, the girls’ basketball coach at a public high school, discovered that his team was not receiving equal funding and equal access to athletic equipment and facilities, he complained unsuccessfully to his supervisors. He then received negative work evaluations and ultimately was removed as the girls’ coach. Petitioner alleged that respondent school board had retaliated against him because he had complained about sex discrimination in the high school athletic program and that such retaliation violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The district court dismissed petitioner’s complaint, finding that Title IX’s private cause of action does not include claims of retaliation. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Reversing, the Supreme Court found that, when a funding recipient retaliates against a person because he or she complains of sex discrimination, this constitutes intentional “discrimination” “on the basis of sex” in violation of Title IX. The Court held that retaliation is, by definition, an intentional act. The Court found that retaliation is a form of “discrimination” because the complainant is subjected to differential treatment. Moreover, the Court found that it is “discrimination on the basis of sex” because it is an intentional response to the nature of the complaint: an allegation of sex discrimination. The Court rejected respondent’s reliance on Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (Clearinghouse No. 51,706), noting that its ruling did not rely on the Education Department’s regulation, because Title IX itself contains the necessary prohibition on retaliation against a person who speaks out against sex discrimination. The Court also rejected respondent’s argument that petitioner was not entitled to invoke Title IX’s private right of action because he was an “indirect victim” of sex discrimination. The Court held that, where the retaliation occurs because the complainant speaks out about sex discrimination, the statute’s “on the basis of sex” requirement is satisfied.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2005-03-29 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: