As head coach of girls' basketball at Ensley High School in Birmingham, Roderick Jackson felt that his squad had less access to the gym and training equipment than the boys' team did.
He thought that might violate Title IX, the landmark 1972 federal law barring gender discrimination at federally funded educational institutions, and he told school administrators.
Roderick Jackson was coach of girls' basketball in an Alabama high school.
(Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)
|
|
In May 2001, he was informed that his services as coach were no longer required.
Now, the question before the Supreme Court is whether that alleged retaliation makes Jackson a victim of illegal gender discrimination under Title IX, with the same right to sue as any girl on the team would have.
Yesterday, the court heard oral arguments in the case, which women's rights advocates are calling one of the most significant Supreme Court tests for Title IX since its enactment.
Jackson is supported by the Bush administration, which told the court in a brief that "[e]ffective protection against retaliation is indispensable to the achievement of Congress's nondiscrimination goals."
But the Birmingham school board objected that Title IX has no explicit provision creating a right to sue over retaliation. Thus, the board argued, the only lawful way for Jackson to hold school authorities accountable is to complain to the Department of Education in Washington, which can cut off the flow of federal money to Title IX violators.
"He should make the toll-free call to the Office of Civil Rights, because the ultimate beneficiary . . . is the basketball team. Damages or injunctive relief [from a lawsuit] go only to him," school board attorney Kenneth L. Thomas told the justices.
The board's case relies heavily on a 2001 Supreme Court decision that set tighter conditions for interpreting statutes to give individuals a right to sue. The court ruled 5 to 4 that it would not recognize such a right unless a law specifically includes one or contains no other remedy for illegal conduct -- such as a threatened funding cutoff -- or if the legislative history shows that Congress clearly meant to create a right to sue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, also relied on the 2001 ruling when it threw out Jackson's suit against the school board in 2002. The 11th Circuit noted that Title IX does not specifically protect whistle-blowers as well as direct victims of discrimination.
Thomas's argument seemed to strike a chord with some members of the court, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who told Jackson's attorney, Walter Dellinger, that "this is not the heyday of private causes of action. You have to show congressional intent . . . to create one."
Dellinger replied that retaliation against whistle-blowers was considered a part of discrimination at the time the law was enacted.
"There is no way that the [school] district at the time it accepted federal funds could have thought they were free to retaliate," Dellinger said.
He also noted that the federal regulations on enforcing Title IX instruct school authorities not to retaliate against those who complain about discrimination.
