The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Nov. 30 in Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. At issue is whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can sue under Title IX over sex-based discrimination in employment. The ruling could shape future litigation involving colleges and universities.
The case brings together claims by two former University System of Georgia employees. Georgia Tech dismissed women’s basketball coach MaChelle Joseph in 2019, less than two months after she filed an internal complaint alleging that her team was denied resources provided to the men’s basketball program. The university said it fired her after an independent investigation found that players felt bullied by her.
Augusta University reassigned fine arts professor Thomas Crowther in 2020 and later declined to renew his contract after a Title IX investigation into an anonymous sexual-harassment complaint. Crowther argued that the university disregarded witness statements supporting him. Both sued the system’s regents board under Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed both claims, ruling that Title IX does not give individuals the right to sue over employment discrimination. Eight other federal appeals courts have reached the opposite conclusion, while the 5th and 7th Circuits have also blocked such claims.
The justices have considered a related issue before. In 2005, the court ruled in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education that a high school coach could pursue a Title IX claim alleging retaliation after he complained about unequal resources for the girls’ basketball team. Supporters of Crowther and Joseph say that decision backs their position. Opponents argue the cases differ: Jackson concerned retaliation, while Crowther raises whether employees can bring direct discrimination claims under Title IX.
The arguments also center on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which provides a route for employment discrimination claims. Gregory Garre, representing the University System of Georgia’s regents board in an amicus brief, argues that Title VII is the appropriate remedy and that Congress’s timing in amending it shortly before enacting Title IX indicates the latter was not meant to cover employment discrimination. Attorney Jon Israel also considers Title VII sufficient recourse for employees.
Miriam Becker-Cohen, who filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, says Title VII may not be available to some employees and imposes procedural requirements that Title IX does not. She cited Title VII’s shorter filing deadlines and the requirement that claimants first pursue steps such as filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Sports law professor Barbara Osborne added that some Title IX employment claims involve retaliation for reporting discrimination in athletics, rather than discrimination based on the employee’s own sex.
The decision could also matter if college athletes are later treated as employees. Garre said that would expand the potential group of Title IX plaintiffs, while Israel warned that a ruling making Title VII the exclusive remedy could limit some comparisons between athletes on different teams. Osborne disputed that view, arguing that athletes’ expected duties are broadly similar across teams. Becker-Cohen said that if the court excludes college employees from Title IX’s private right of action, a larger population of workers could be left without that avenue for relief.
Sources: HR Dive.