Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983Title IXEqual Protection Clausepreclusioncongressional intentschool discriminationgender discrimination

Facts

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court assumed true the complaint's allegations that the Fitzgeralds' kindergarten daughter was sexually harassed by an older boy on the school bus and that school officials failed to respond adequately. The parents repeatedly reported the incidents, but the principal concluded there was insufficient evidence to discipline the boy and proposed measures the parents believed burdened their daughter instead. The Fitzgeralds sued the school committee and superintendent, asserting a Title IX claim and § 1983 claims based on Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The lower courts rejected the § 1983 claims, concluding that Title IX provided the exclusive means of relief.

Issue

Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 precludes an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools. More specifically, the question was whether plaintiffs may still bring § 1983 Equal Protection claims despite Title IX's own enforcement mechanisms and implied private right of action.

Rule

A later-enacted statute precludes § 1983 enforcement only if Congress intended the statute's remedial scheme to be the exclusive avenue for relief. Title IX does not show such intent with respect to constitutional claims because it lacks the kind of comprehensive, carefully tailored remedial scheme that previously supported preclusion, and because Title IX's rights and coverage diverge in significant ways from those under the Equal Protection Clause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a public middle school in Columbus, Ohio, Maya Chen alleges that school administrators intentionally handled complaints by girls less seriously than similar complaints by boys. She sues the district under Title IX and also sues the superintendent and district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Equal Protection Clause.

The defendants move to dismiss the § 1983 equal protection claim, arguing that Title IX provides the exclusive federal remedy for sex discrimination in schools. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing question is congressional intent: whether Congress meant Title IX's remedial scheme to be the exclusive avenue for relief. The Court held that Title IX does not preclude § 1983 suits based on the Equal Protection Clause alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools. Title IX lacks the sort of comprehensive, carefully tailored remedial scheme that supported preclusion in prior cases, and its rights and coverage diverge from equal protection in significant ways. (Derived from Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009).)