The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case during their next term concerning whether all school employees can bring sex discrimination lawsuits under a law governing educational institutions receiving federal funding.
A judge for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statutory language does not provide a “private right of action to employees of educational institutions.”
The employees bringing this consolidated case, however, disagreed with this interpretation and hope to see the decision reversed by the nation’s highest court.
The 11th Circuit’s ruling represents a departure from the viewpoint that has been adopted by eight other appeals courts throughout the country.
Although the 5th and 7th Circuit Courts have previously ruled in a manner similar to the 11th Circuit, these decisions were made prior to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling which found that those working for federally funded schools may invoke Title IX’s implied private right of action in order to bring claims.
NCAA basketball coach MaChelle Joseph lodged a complaint with her employer, Georgia Tech, alleging that they were behaving in a discriminatory manner by providing more resources to the men’s basketball team than the women’s.
Following this, Joseph was fired from her position as head coach in 2019 and sued under several laws, including Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded educational programs.
Employment discrimination claims are typically brought under Title VII, but there are additional requirements that must be met and limitations on the amount that can be awarded in damages.
Joseph’s case has been consolidated with that of Thomas Crowther, an art professor whose contract with the Augusta University was allowed to expire in 2021 following reports of inappropriate conduct, including sexual harassment.
Crowther has maintained that he did not engage in any wrongdoing and has argued that he was not given enough of an opportunity to refute these allegations.
Former Georgia Solicitor General Stephen Petrany, representing the University of Georgia system’s board of regents, has presented a very different interpretation of the two cases at hand.
In the state’s brief to the Court, Petrany described the petitioners as a “college basketball coach who was fired because she treated her players and staff so poorly that athletes began to quit the team mid-season” and an “art professor who was fired after taking pictures of nude student models on his phone.”
The Court’s ruling in this consolidated case is expected to have widespread implications for both educational institutions and their employees.
Should the justices side with the appellees, schools found to be engaging in sex-based discrimination will likely be responsible for paying out larger sums in damages, while employees who have been victim to such discrimination would have a new avenue made available to them.
Upon considering whether or not accept this appeal, the justices asked the Trump Administration for its opinion on the matter.
Although Solicitor General D. John Sauer expressed agreement with circuit court’s ruling, he urged the Supreme Court to still take up the case in order to resolve a lower court dispute.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this consolidated case at some point during their 2026-27 term.
