Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsTitle IXImplied private right of actionRetaliationTitle IXretaliationintentional discriminationprivate right of action

Facts

Because the complaint was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court assumed the complaint's allegations were true. Jackson was a physical education teacher and girls' basketball coach who discovered that the girls' team lacked equal funding and equal access to equipment and facilities. He complained to supervisors about the unequal treatment, but the situation was not remedied. Instead, he allegedly received negative evaluations and was removed as girls' coach, losing supplemental coaching pay while remaining employed as a teacher.

Issue

Whether Title IX's implied private right of action encompasses a claim that a federally funded school retaliated against an individual because he complained about sex discrimination. Also, whether such a claimant may sue even if he was not himself the original target of the underlying sex discrimination.

Rule

Retaliation against a person because he complains of sex discrimination is intentional discrimination on the basis of sex within the meaning of Title IX, and Title IX's implied private right of action therefore encompasses suits for such retaliation. The claimant need not have been the direct victim of the underlying sex discrimination, so long as the retaliation occurred because he spoke out about sex discrimination.

🔒

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 federally funded public high school in Columbus, Ohio, science teacher Lena Ortiz repeatedly complained to the principal that the girls' robotics team was denied lab access routinely given to the boys' team. Three weeks later, the school reassigned Ortiz from robotics adviser to lunch-duty monitor and cut the stipend tied to the adviser role.

Ortiz sues the school district under Title IX. What is the strongest argument that her complaint states a valid claim?

Explanation. The majority held that when a funding recipient retaliates against a person because that person complained of sex discrimination, the retaliation itself is intentional discrimination on the basis of sex covered by Title IX's implied private right of action. The statute need not expressly mention retaliation, and the complainant need not first obtain a separate adjudication on the underlying discrimination claim.