Jackson v.

Birmingham Board of Education

United States Supreme Court
544 U.S. 167 (2005)

Key Search Terms: Sex discrimination, retaliation, intentional

discrimination, complaints of alleged discrimination

Facts
Roderick Jackson, a physical education teacher and girls’ basketball coach,
discovered that the girls’ basketball team he coached was not receiving equal
access to athletic equipment, facilities, and funding. With notice of the
situation, the school took no action to stop the discrimination and Jackson
was removed from his position as basketball coach by the Board in May 2001.
Jackson filed suit alleging that the Board violated Title IX by retaliating against
him for voicing a complaint about the discriminatory treatment of the girls’
basketball team. The District Court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss
because it decided that Title IX does not cover claims of retaliation. The
Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue
Whether Jackson’s claim was properly dismissed because Title IX does not
encompass retaliation claims.

Holding
Retaliation falls with the intended scope of Title IX because retaliation claims
meet the statutory definition of intentional discrimination. Retaliation is by
definition an intentional act and that the act is a form of discrimination
because the person voicing the complaint is subjected to differential treatment.
Therefore, the Court concluded that when a person is retaliated against
because he complains of sex discrimination, Title IX is violated because the act
constitutes intentional sex discrimination. The Court stated that reporting
incidents of discrimination is essential to give Title IX its full intended effect,
and the enforcement goals of Title IX would be disrupted if the statute provided
no punishment for individuals that retaliate against those who report incidents
of sex discrimination. Teachers and coaches are often in the best position to
advocate for students’ rights, and adult employees’ are often the only effective
adversaries of discrimination in schools. The Court ruled that Jackson did
allege sufficient facts to support a claim in his amended complaint, but did not
address whether Jackson will ultimately prevail on the merits. The Court
remanded the case.

Summarized by: Reid Murtaugh