A federal appeals court limited when Title IX applies to university employees in a first-of-its-kind case for the Eleventh Circuit. The landmark decision gives universities a clearer picture of their options and defense strategies where Title IX and Title VII intersect.
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of discrimination and retaliation claims brought by the former Georgia Tech women's basketball coach. In doing so, the court held that Title IX does not provide an implied right of action to bring a claim of sex discrimination in employment. This decision underscores a critical distinction between Title IX and Title VII, and the limited scope of Title IX when applied to university employees, as opposed to students.
The case arose from the former coach's allegations under Title VII, Title IX, and the Georgia Whistleblower Act. She claimed she faced a hostile work environment and was retaliated against due to her advocacy for women's sports, leading to her termination in 2019. However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the former coach did not present sufficient evidence to show that a male counterpart in her position would have been treated differently or that her firing was retaliatory, as it related to the Title VII and whistleblower allegations.
In reaching its decision, the Eleventh Circuit also rejected the former coach's attempt to read an implied private right of action for employment discrimination into Title IX. This was the first time the Eleventh Circuit addressed this issue. In its analysis, the court reasoned that Title IX's protections were primarily designed for students—not employees. It directed those with employment discrimination claims to Title VII, which was explicitly enacted to address such issues.
Aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title IX's scope and impact, the court explained, "because Title IX was enacted under the [Constitution's] spending clause, it is dubious that recipients of federal funds would understand that they have knowingly and voluntarily accepted potential liability for damages for claims of employment discrimination under Title IX when those kinds of claims are expressly provided for and regulated by Title VII."
In the same decision, the Eleventh Circuit also reversed another Georgia district court's decision regarding a former Augusta University art professor's Title IX claims. There, the art professor alleged sex discrimination and retaliation. He filed suit after the university suspended him and did not renew his contract following an investigation that found he violated the university's sexual harassment policy. In addition to finding no implied right of action for employment discrimination under Title IX, the court clarified that Title IX does not support retaliation claims for individuals accused of discrimination. It underscored that Title IX protections do not extend to those participating in investigations of their own alleged misconduct. Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit found that the various claims presented by these former employees failed and were due to be dismissed.
For universities, this decision sheds light on the limits of Title IX's application in the employment context and highlights the distinct legal frameworks provided by Title IX and Title VII. The rights afforded to students under Title IX are different than those afforded to employees, and this ruling should limit employees' Title IX claims going forward.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
