Constitutional Law

Justices Reject Preemption of Gender Discrimination Claim In Public Schools

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower federal appeals court decision that a gender discrimination claim brought under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 precludes a separate action under an older civil rights law alleging gender discrimination in public schools. The unanimous court in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee noted that the appeals court decision that concluded Title IX bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Reconstruction era law intended to uphold equal protection, “deepened a conflict among the [federal appeals court] Circuits regarding whether Title IX precludes use of § 1983 to redress unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.”

The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, found that, “This court has never held that an implied right of action had the effect of precluding suit under § 1983, likely because of the difficulty of discerning congressional intent in such a situation.” Nonetheless, Alito wrote that a “comparison of the substantive rights and protections guaranteed under Title IX and under the Equal Protection Clause lends further support to the conclusion that Congress did not intend Title IX to preclude § 1983 constitutional suits. Title IX’s protections are narrower in some respects and broader in others. Because the protections guaranteed by the two sources of law diverge in this way, we cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that ‘Congress saw Title IX as the sole means to vindicating the constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination perpetrated by educational institutions.’”

The ruling revives § 1983 claims of gender discrimination in public schools against Barnstable, Mass., school officials. Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald maintain that their daughter a kindergartner during the 2000-2001 school year had been sexually harassed by a peer numerous times on the school bus and at school and that the school officials’ investigation of the claims were tainted by gender discrimination. In a recent guest blog post for ACS, Dina Lassow, the Senior Counsel of the National Women’s law Center, analyzed the case and argued that the court should reject the argument that the Title IX preempts other general discrimination claims from being brought. Lassow’s piece is available here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on January 21, 2009 (boomark / email).