Law & Courts

Justices to Hear School Sex-Discrimination Case

By Mark Walsh — June 12, 2008 3 min read

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


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.
Student Well-Being Webinar
Measuring & Supporting Student Well-Being: A Researcher and District Leader Roundtable
Students’ social-emotional well-being matters. The positive and negative emotions students feel are essential characteristics of their psychology, indicators of their well-being, and mediators of their success in school and life. Supportive relationships with peers, school
Content provided by Panorama 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.
School & District Management Webinar
Making Digital Literacy a Priority: An Administrator’s Perspective
Join us as we delve into the efforts of our panelists and their initiatives to make digital skills a “must have” for their district. We’ll discuss with district leadership how they have kept digital literacy
Content provided by
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.
School & District Management Webinar
How Schools Can Implement Safe In-Person Learning
In order for in-person schooling to resume, it will be necessary to instill a sense of confidence that it is safe to return. BD is hosting a virtual panel discussing the benefits of asymptomatic screening
Content provided by BD

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 How a Cheerleader's Snapchat Profanity Could Shape the Limits of Students' Free Speech
Brandi Levy's social media post is the basis for a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on whether schools may punish off-campus speech.
9 min read
Image of Brandi Levy.
Brandi Levy, now an 18-year-old college freshman, was a cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania when she made profane comments on Snapchat that are now at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case on student speech rights.
Danna Singer/Provided by the American Civil Liberties Union
Law & Courts Student School Board Members Flex Their Civic Muscle in Supreme Court Free-Speech Case
Current and former student school board members add their growing voices to a potentially precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case.
7 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
Law & Courts Justice Department Memo Could Stoke State-Federal Fights Over Transgender Students' Rights
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, a Justice Department memo says.
3 min read
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on transgender girls and women from female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D. on March 11, 2021.
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on allowing transgender girls and women to play in female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D.
Stephen Groves/AP
Law & Courts Diverse Array of Groups Back Student in Supreme Court Case on Off-Campus Speech
John and Mary Beth Tinker, central to the landmark speech case that bears their name, argue that even offensive speech merits protection.
5 min read
In this photo taken Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013, Mary Beth Tinker, 61, shows an old photograph of her with her brother John Tinker to the Associated Press during an interview in Washington. Tinker was just 13 when she spoke out against the Vietnam War by wearing a black armband to her Iowa school in 1965. When the school suspended her, she took her free speech case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Her message: Students should take action on issues important to them. "It's better for our whole society when kids have a voice," she says.
In this 2013 photo, Mary Beth Tinker shows a 1968 Associated Press photograph of her with her brother John Tinker displaying the armbands they had worn in school to protest the Vietnam War. (The peace symbols were added after the school protest). The Tinkers have filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a Pennsylvania student who was disciplined for an offensive message on Snapchat.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP