Sonnenschein Represents ABA in Landmark Sex Discrimination Case in Supreme Court
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that victims of sex discrimination at federally funded schools and colleges may bring suit not only under Title IX, which specifically prohibits such discrimination, but also under Section 1983, a broader civil rights statute that offers greater remedies.
Sonnenschein represented the American Bar Association (ABA), acting as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiffs’ position, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Section 1983, which derives from the Civil Rights Act of 1871, is one of the nation's most important civil rights laws. Section 1983 provides remedies against defendants who, acting on behalf of a state, deny persons rights under the Constitution and laws. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 guarantees gender equality in federally funded education programs. In many respects, Section 1983 provides greater remedies than Title IX. For more than a decade, there has been conflict among the circuits as to whether Title IX precludes the use of Section 1983 to redress unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.
The case, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, decided by the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, was brought by the parents of a kindergarten girl, alleging that the school had responded improperly and inadequately when their daughter complained of being sexually harassed by a third-grade boy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which sits in Boston, upheld the dismissal of the parents’ Title IX claim, holding that the school had not acted with “deliberate indifference.” The appeals court also upheld the dismissal of the parents’ Section 1983 claim, holding that “Congress saw Title IX as the sole means of vindicating the constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination perpetrated by educational institutions.”
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Fitzgerald to resolve the conflict among the circuits as to whether Title IX precluded claims under Section 1983.
In its amicus brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the ABA, Sonnenschein argued that the First Circuit’s decision would produce anomalous results—public schools that did not receive federal funds would be subject to Section 1983, while public schools that received federal funds would be subject to Title IX, and “a public school that received federal funding would not be subject to remedies under Section 1983 unless it lost that funding because of a Title IX violation.”
In the ABA brief, Sonnenschein reviewed the legislative history of Title IX, stating, “When Title IX was enacted in 1972, there was an existing, well-developed body of law concerning Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d [which prohibits discrimination, based on race, color, or national origin in federally-funded programs]. Under this body of law, courts had permitted claims under Section 1983 to redress constitutional equal protection violations, even where the subject matter of those claims was encompassed within Title VI.”
At oral argument, Justice John Paul Stevens questioned the school district’s counsel about the anomaly that had been outlined in the ABA brief: “If you have two state schools, one gets federal funds and the other does not, [there would be] no 1983 remedy against one, but there is a 1983 remedy against the other?”
In his decision for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito reviewed the legislative history of Title IX, noting that “Congress modeled Title IX after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 … and passed Title IX with the explicit understanding that it would be interpreted as Title VI was … . At the time of Title IX's enactment in 1972, Title VI was routinely interpreted to allow for parallel and concurrent § 1983 claims, … and we presume Congress was aware of this when it passed Title IX.”
Sonnenschein partner Richard Zuckerman and associates Jo Christine Reed and Matt Marostica prepared the brief on behalf of the ABA.
