Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

U.S. Supreme Court

Ruling expands Title IX protections

A teacher or coach who claims sexual discrimination on others' behalf is protected from firing at schools that get federal funds.

WASHINGTON - Coach Roderick Jackson recalls the warnings from colleagues when he began complaining that the boys high school basketball team got better treatment than his girls team. "You better hush your mouth," they said.

Jackson wouldn't let up; he sent letters and requested meetings with Birmingham, Ala., school officials. His efforts didn't have the desired result: He was fired in May 2001.

But Jackson continued his fight, filing a lawsuit claiming Title IX, the landmark gender equity law, shielded him from termination for complaining about unequal conditions.

He lost in U.S. District Court and again at federal appeals court. But he pressed on and in the biggest legal arena of all, he won.

In a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled a teacher or coach who claims sexual discrimination on behalf of others is protected from firing at academic institutions that receive federal funding.

"The court's ruling, in my opinion, is a win-win situation for schools and students," Jackson said. "When people know they're protected against retaliation, people like my students and myself will be more willing to come forward."

The ruling expanding protections offered by Title IX was cheered by women's advocates but decried by school boards, which worry it will lead to a torrent of lawsuits.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, said that without Title IX protection "individuals who witness discrimination would likely not report it."

"Teachers and coaches such as Jackson are often in the best position to vindicate the rights of their students because they are better able to identify discrimination and bring it to the attention of administrators," O'Connor wrote.

O'Connor was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the former head of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which investigates claims of discrimination in the workplace. He wrote that the ruling was in opposition to the language of the congressional statute, which requires a lawsuit filed under Title IX be for "sex discrimination."

"A claim of retaliation is not a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex," Thomas wrote, noting other civil rights laws have provisions addressing retaliation. "The question before us is only whether Title IX prohibits retaliation, not whether prohibiting it is good policy."

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Title IX, the 1972 law best known for promoting women's athletics, bars sex discrimination in any educational program receiving federal funds. The statute has been silent as to the rights of whistleblowers who aren't direct victims but who claim retaliation. Since 1975, the federal government has interpreted Title IX to cover retaliation claims.

Jackson sought to pursue a Title IX lawsuit when he lost his coaching job in 2001 after repeatedly asking Birmingham school officials to provide his team a regulation-size gym with basketball rims that weren't bent - just like the boys' team had. He lost in lower courts, which ruled Title IX did not authorize retaliation claims. The Supreme Court's ruling now lets Jackson proceed to trial to prove he was suspended because of his complaints.

"This decision is a slam dunk victory for everyone who cares about equal opportunity," said Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. "The court has confirmed that people cannot be punished for standing up for their rights."

But Julie Underwood, general counsel for the National School Board Association, said the ruling was unfair because whistleblowers already had other legal options, such as claiming a First Amendment violation or filing complaints with the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights.

"The issue is paving another path to the courthouse when it wasn't necessary," she said. "As it plays out, it will increase litigation against the school districts."

Legal experts said the real test will be how broadly lower courts interpret the retaliation claim since O'Connor's opinion does not make clear whether a teacher or coach is protected if fired for making a Title IX claim that later turns out to be false.

Jackson's case had drawn wide interest, with support from the Bush administration and 180 civil rights groups including the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Federation of Teachers. Jackson, who remained on the payroll as a teacher, was rehired as coach in 2003 on an interim basis, and the old gym now has two new, regulation-sized hoops.

The case is Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education, 02-1672.

[Last modified March 30, 2005, 01:27:17]