The U.S. Supreme Court recently delved into the depths of federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, revealing a clear division among the justices. The case involved an appeal from Roderick L. Jackson, a high school coach from Alabama, who claimed he faced retaliation after speaking out about unequal treatment of his female basketball players. Jackson, a physical education teacher, argued that he lost his coaching position at a Birmingham school because he voiced concerns about funding and facility disparities between the boys’ and girls’ basketball teams. The crucial matter at hand during the hour-long session on November 30th was whether courts should consider retaliation lawsuits brought under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which forbids discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational programs.
Representatives for the Birmingham district and the state of Alabama argued that private lawsuits for retaliation under Title IX were never intended by Congress. They contended that such claims could be effectively resolved by filing complaints with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the federal Department of Education. On the other side, lawyers representing Jackson and the Bush administration argued that the courthouse should be accessible for such suits, as the OCR, limited by resources, might not be able to handle every case efficiently. Walter Dellinger, a former acting U.S. solicitor general under President Clinton, who presented Jackson’s case, stated that the existing process was not responsive enough for individual cases.
During the arguments, some of the eight justices appeared to support Jackson’s arguments, asserting that two lower federal courts erred in dismissing his lawsuit. However, there were others who expressed skepticism, and the opinions of a few were unclear. Justice Clarence Thomas, who once served as the head of the Education Department’s civil rights office, refrained from asking any questions during the proceedings. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, currently receiving treatment for thyroid cancer, was absent but expressed his intention to participate in the case by reading the briefs and transcripts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emerged as the most sympathetic towards Jackson’s case. In her questioning, she suggested that private lawsuits filed by teachers and coaches were crucial in enforcing Title IX, and without them, the law would be ineffective. She also expressed doubts about the OCR’s ability to address retaliatory actions like the ones suffered by Jackson due to limited resources. Prompted by her inquiries, Irving L. Gornstein, an assistant U.S. solicitor general representing Jackson, acknowledged that the Education Department had never actually withheld funds from a district or college for noncompliance with Title IX, which is the penalty prescribed by the law for violations. Justice Ginsburg later questioned Kenneth L. Thomas, the lawyer representing the Birmingham district, on their priorities and whether girls’ sports were considered a low priority. However, Thomas, who began his argument by sharing his own encounter with excessive OCR investigations, insisted that the agency was fully capable of ensuring compliance with Title IX in school districts.
Debate Surrounding the Scope of the Law
In 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that Mr. Jackson did not have a case because Title IX does not explicitly mention retaliation. Despite the Education Department’s regulations that prohibit retaliation against individuals who report violations of Title IX, the appeals court determined that these rules were insufficient to grant the right to sue to such individuals. This decision was largely based on a previous ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, where the Supreme Court dismissed a civil rights case because the statute in question did not prohibit the type of unintentional discrimination that the plaintiffs claimed, despite a federal regulation doing so.
Walter Dellinger, who argued on behalf of Roderick L. Jackson before the U.S. Supreme Court, stated that the right of private individuals to sue over Title IX violations had already been established in the Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in Cannon v. University of Chicago. He argued that Title IX should cover those who experience retaliation after reporting bias, not just the initial victims of discriminatory behavior. Justice Scalia expressed skepticism, noting that Congress had explicitly prohibited retaliation in other statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addresses racial and ethnic bias in employment. Justice Scalia questioned whether it was reasonable to argue that Mr. Jackson himself had experienced discrimination based on sex. Mr. Dellinger firmly responded, stating that Mr. Jackson would not have raised a complaint if he had not faced sex discrimination in the first place and that he had lost his position as a result of his complaint. The argument was supported by Mr. Gornstein, a lawyer representing the Bush administration, who stated that retaliation itself qualifies as discrimination under Title IX. He emphasized the importance of granting teachers and coaches the right to sue for retaliation when they report discrimination against their students, as it is crucial for enforcing the law.
It is worth noting that Mr. Jackson has maintained his tenured teaching position throughout the legal battle with the district. In 2003, he temporarily regained his coaching position. Mr. Jackson explained that he decided to sue after the district stripped him of his coaching responsibilities in 2001 because he believed that ignoring the discrimination he witnessed would make him complicit in it. Although Mr. Jackson had heard of the OCR (Office for Civil Rights), he claimed that he never knew anyone who had gone through that process or achieved any results. The district’s lawyer, Mr. Thomas, reiterated that the district categorically denies retaliating against Mr. Jackson. Superintendent Wayman B. Shiver Jr. stated that the district had reinstated Mr. Jackson as a coach because he was the only candidate available at the time. However, Mr. Shiver expressed concerns that if Mr. Jackson were to prevail in court, it would impact the district’s ability to manage the system. The Supreme Court assumed Mr. Jackson’s version of events for the purpose of argument. If he prevails at the Supreme Court level, he will be able to pursue his claims in the lower courts. A decision on this case is anticipated by the end of the court’s term in June.
