Title IX

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee

Issues

Does Title IX’s implied right of action provide an exclusive remedy for claims of gender discrimination in federally-funded academic institutions, therefore limiting the right to bring a separate claim for a violation of constitutional right to Equal Protection?

 

Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald brought suit against the Barnstable School Committee (“Barnstable”) under both § 1983 and Title IX, claiming the district was deliberately indifferent to their daughter’s claims of sexual harassment by an older student on her school bus. Neither the police nor the school’s own investigation found enough evidence to charge or punish the alleged perpetrator. The federal district court dismissed the Fitzgeralds’ Title IX sexual discrimination claim on summary judgment. The court indicated that because Title IX prescribed the remedy for allegations of sexual discrimination in federally funded educational institutions, it foreclosed a separate § 1983 claim alleging a violation of a constitutional right to Equal Protection. The Fitzgeralds claim there are fundamental differences between the rights of action in § 1983 and Title IX, and that a statute intended to expand rights would never limit a constitutional right of action. Barnstable, however, maintains that Congress’s efforts to pass Title IX represented an entirely separate standard to govern sex discrimination in schools. Women’s rights groups claim that a decision to foreclose liability under § 1983 will make it more difficult to bring claims of sexual discrimination in educational institutions, while Barnstable claims that maintaining both causes of action would overexpose educational institutions to suits for violations committed by individuals, rather than just the institution itself.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), has been interpreted to provide an implied private right of action for sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code creates an express remedy for violations of the U.S. Constitution. Three courts of appeals have held that Title IX’s implied remedy does not foreclose Section 1983 claims to enforce the Constitution’s prohibition against invidious sex discrimination. In contrast, four circuits, including the First Circuit in this case, have held that Title IX’s implied right of action is the exclusive remedy for sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions.

The question presented is:

Whether Title IX’s implied right of action precludes Section 1983 constitutional claims to remedy sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions.

After several months of displaying atypical behavior, kindergartner Jacqueline Fitzgerald reported to her parents (the “Fitzgeralds”) in February 2001 that an older student on her school bus was harassing her by forcing her to lift her skirt when she wore dresses. See Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 504 F.3d 165, 169 (1st Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

· U.S. Department of Education—Title IX and Sexual Discrimination http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html

· Workplace Prof Blog: Another Right Without a Remedy on the Way: Court Grants Cert in the Title IX Preclusion/Peer Sex Harassment Case (June 9, 2008)

· Comment from Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald in The Flat Hat, student newspaper at The College of William & Mary http://flathatnews.com/content/68983/supreme-court-will-hear-title-ix-case

· Criticism of U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: http://www.openmarket.org/2008/07/22/fitzgerald-v-barnstable-school-committee-a-stealth-assault-on-the-state-action-doctrine/

Submit for publication
0

Little v. Hecox

Issues

Do laws that limit participation in women’s and girls’ sports to biological females violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether laws that limit participation in women’s and girls’ sports to biological females violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Petitioner Bradley Little, the Governor of Idaho, argues that the prohibition on males participating in women’s sports does not violate equal protection because it is substantially related to the important state interest of promoting women’s equality in athletics. Respondent Lindsay Hecox counters that the prohibition violates equal protection by discriminating against a quasi-suspect classification of transgender people. Moreover, Hecox argues the prohibition is not substantially related to the government’s interest in fair athletic competitions. The outcome of this case will have significant ramifications for participation in women’s sports and the ongoing interpretation of gender discrimination law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In March 2020, Idaho categorically banned transgender women’s and girls’ participation in women’s student athletics with the enactment of the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (“FWSA”). Hecox v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Issues

May a state prevent transgender girls who have not undergone male puberty from participating in girls’ sports?

This case asks the Court to decide whether states may prevent transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports. West Virginia argues that its statute does not violate Title IX because it makes no distinction on the basis of gender identity and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it passes intermediate scrutiny based on the state’s interest in competitive fairness. B.P.J. argues that the statute violates Title IX by discriminating against transgender girls and violates the Equal Protection Clause because the statute is not substantially related to the state’s goal of competitive fairness. This case raises significant concerns about fairness within women’s sports and the safety of transgender and cisgender athletes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

In April 2021, West Virginia passed H.B. 3293 (the “Act”), a statute preventing students who were biologically male at birth from participating in contact or competitive sports designated for female students. W. VA.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Title IX