The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that people who complain of sex discrimination in schools can sue under both a 1972 federal law and a broader post-Civil War provision. The decision was a victory for the parents of a Massachusetts schoolgirl, who said she was subjected to repeated harassment by a third-grade boy on their school bus. The case was the subject of an earlier blog post which can be viewed by clicking here.
It is quite common for students or parents claiming sex bias at school to make claims under both the Constitution (Section 1983) and Title IX, to maximize their chances for winning some remedy and perhaps, with the constitutional claim, a broader remedy. Section 1983 allows any citizen to sue any state or local official who deprives that citizen of rights under the Constitution or federal law. But the Supreme Court has ruled that the government isn’t liable for private discrimination by one person against another, even if the person discriminating is subject to government regulation and control, and even if the government is aware of, and indifferent to, that discrimination. Title IX protects students from being “subjected to discrimination” in schools regardless of the source of discrimination, even if the discriminator is a student — provided that the school district is on notice of the discrimination and is “deliberately indifferent” to it.
Lower federal courts had ruled that the parents, Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald, could not sue the Barnstable School Committee under the older law because Title IX, barring sex discrimination at schools that receive federal money, ruled out using the older provision.
Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that Title IX does not bar suits under the older civil rights, which was designed to enforce the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Court specifically concluded that Title IX was not meant to be an exclusive mechanism for addressing gender discrimination in schools, or a substitute for §1983 suits as a means of en-forcing constitutional rights. To view a copy of the full decision, click here.
