Term: 2008
Docket: 07-1125
Lisa Fitzgerald, Et Vir v. Barnstable School Committee Et Al.
- Pro
07-1125 FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM. DECISION BELOW: 504 F3d 165 CERT. GRANTED 6/9/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), has been interpreted to provide an implied private right of action for sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code creates an express remedy for violations of the U.S. Constitution. Three courts of appeals have held that Title IX’s implied remedy does not foreclose Section 1983 claims to enforce the Constitution’s prohibition against invidious sex discrimination. In contrast, four circuits, including the First Circuit in this case, have held that Title IX’s implied right of action is the exclusive remedy for sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions. The question presented is: Whether Title IX’s implied right of action precludes Section 1983 constitutional claims to remedy sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-2596
In the case of Lisa Fitzgerald, et vir v. Barnstable School Committee et al., 2008, the U.S Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title IX does not preclude Section 1983 claims in cases of gender discrimination in schools. The case was brought by parents on behalf of their kindergarten daughter who had been subjected to sexual harassment by an older student on her school bus. Despite complaints made to the school district and attempts at resolution, no effective action was taken to prevent further incidents. The family sued under both Title IX (which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs) and Section 1983 (a civil rights law allowing individuals to sue state entities for constitutional violations). Lower courts dismissed their claims stating that Title IX provided an exclusive remedy for such allegations. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that remedies under these two laws are complementary rather than mutually exclusive - thus reversing previous rulings and remanding it back for further proceedings.
In the case of Lisa Fitzgerald, et vir v. Barnstable School Committee et al., Justice Thomas was the only dissenting voice. He argued that Title IX's administrative enforcement scheme and its allowance for private right of action should be interpreted as a comprehensive and exclusive solution to gender discrimination in federally funded education programs. According to him, allowing additional lawsuits under Section 1983 would undermine Congress's intent in creating an elaborate enforcement mechanism through Title IX. Furthermore, he pointed out that this decision could potentially open up other anti-discrimination statutes to similar interpretations which could lead to unnecessary litigation and confusion about applicable standards.
