Law & Courts

Justices to Hear School Sex-Discrimination Case

By Mark Walsh — June 12, 2008 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up an appeal examining whether Title IX provides the exclusive legal remedy for cases of sex discrimination in public schools.

The court will seek to settle a long-standing split in the federal appeals courts over whether a broader federal civil rights law, known as Section 1983, also provides the basis for suits alleging sex discrimination in education.

“The implications of this are quite large,” said Deborah L. Brake, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in schools and colleges that receive federal funding. Lawyers for a Massachusetts family argue in an appeal to the high court that suits brought under the statute “are subject to very real limitations.” For example, the justices have ruled that school districts may be liable for peer sexual harassment in schools only when school officials had actual notice of the harassment and responded with deliberate indifference.

Meanwhile, a sex-discrimination claim brought under Section 1983, which derives from the Civil Rights Act of 1871, typically alleges a violation of the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Such a constitutional claim doesn’t necessarily face the same legal hurdles that Title IX claims face.

“Because an equal-protection claim brought under Section 1983 may vindicate certain rights regarding school-place sexual harassment that are not actionable under Title IX, the Title IX statutory rights are not virtually identical to their constitutional counterparts,” says the appeal for the family in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (Case No. 07-1125).

Trouble on School Bus

The case arises from claims that a kindergarten girl was subjected to sexual harassment by a 3rd grade boy while riding the bus to school. Each time the girl wore a dress to school, the boy allegedly forced her to lift her skirt, pull down her pants, and spread her legs, according to court papers.

The 4,460-student Barnstable, Mass., school district and local police investigated the charges, but the police found there was insufficient evidence to proceed with any criminal action against the 3rd grader, court papers say.

The district offered to place the girl on another bus, a proposal that dissatisfied her parents, who requested that the boy be removed from their daughter’s bus.

In its brief , the district says that because it had trouble substantiating the kindergartner’s allegations, offering to place her on another bus was a reasonable response to the alleged peer harassment.

The School Law Blog

For regular news and analysis on legal developments affecting schools, educators, and parents, read The School Law Blog.

The parents sued the district under both Title IX and Section 1983. Both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, in Boston, ruled against their Title IX claim and held that the Section 1983 claim was foreclosed by Title IX.

The 1st Circuit court noted that besides itself, three other federal circuit courts have ruled that Title IX forecloses Section 1983 constitutional claims. But three other federal circuit courts have ruled that both Title IX and Section 1983 claims may both be raised in a sex-discrimination suit.

For Ms. Brake, the University of Pittsburgh professor, the 1st Circuit’s conclusion that Title IX is the exclusive remedy for sex discrimination in schools was a “stunning” decision.

“In my view, no one in Congress in 1972 believed that in passing Title IX, they were barring constitutional claims against sexual discrimination,” said Ms. Brake, who has been a litigator of Title IX suits but is not directly involved with the Massachusetts case. “The entire goal was to expand rights, not take them away.”

It isn’t clear how many cases there are in which the plaintiffs would lose on a Title IX claim but be able to win on a Section 1983 constitutional claim.

The lawyers for the Massachusetts family contend in their brief that a school district would violate the equal-protection clause, but not necessarily Title IX, if it treated bullying or sexual harassment of boys differently from sexual harassment of girls.

The Barnstable district argues in its brief that even had a Section 1983 claim been allowed to go forward in the parents’ lawsuit, the school system could not have been held liable under the equal-protection clause because it had no custom or policy of allowing peer sexual harassment to go unchecked.

The court will hear the case in the term that begins in October.

A version of this article appeared in the June 18, 2008 edition of Education Week as Justices to Hear School Sex-Discrimination Case

Events

Jobs Regional K-12 Virtual Career Fair: DMV
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Artificial Intelligence Webinar
Making AI Work in Schools: From Experimentation to Purposeful Practice
AI use is expanding in schools. Learn how district leaders can move from experimentation to coordinated, systemwide impact.
Content provided by Frontline Education
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being & Movement Webinar
Building Resilient Students: Leadership Beyond the Classroom
How can schools build resilient, confident students? Join education leaders to explore new strategies for leadership and well-being.
Content provided by IMG Academy

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court to Consider Whether Catholic Preschools Can Reject LGBTQ+ Families
Catholic preschools say Colorado violated religious rights by excluding them from a state-funded program over admission policies.
2 min read
Image of the Supreme Court in the background, an LGBTQ flag waving, and symbols of wedding rings with a male and female sign incorporated in the ring shapes.
Laura Baker/Education Week + Canva
Law & Courts Opinion Why the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Conversion Therapy Matters for Schools
A recent case puts religiously motivated speech ahead of the well-being of LGBTQ+ youth.
Jonathon E. Sawyer
5 min read
lgbtq student backpack with rainbow spectrum flag on stairs isolated
Education Week + iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Minn. Districts Ask Judge to Restore Immigration Enforcement Limits by Schools
Two districts say the policy change hurt attendance and cost them students.
3 min read
Fridley Superintendent Brenda Lewis speaks during a news conference in February at the Minnesota State Capitol.
Superintendent Brenda Lewis of the Fridley, Minn., school district speaks during a news conference in February 2026 at the Minnesota State Capitol. The Fridley district is one of two Minnesota school districts suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in an effort to restore restrictions on immigration enforcement in and near schools.
Carlos Gonzalez/Minnesota Star Tribune via TNS
Law & Courts Birthright Citizenship Case Raises Stakes for Schools and Undocumented Students
Educators are paying close attention to the case on Trump's birthright citizenship order.
10 min read
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Jan. 20, 2025.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 20, 2025. The order, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeks to limit citizenship for some children born in the United States to immigrant parents without permanent legal status.
Evan Vucci/AP