Argument of Chief Justice
Mr. Justice: The opinion of the Court in No. 02-1672, Jackson versus Birmingham Board of Education will be announced by Justice O'Connor.
Argument of Justice O'Connor
Mr. O'Connor: This case comes to us on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The petitioner, Roderick Jackson, is a teacher in the Birmingham Alabama Public Schools.
He sued the Birmingham Board of Education alleging that the Board had violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by retaliating against him because he had complained about sex discrimination in the high school's athletic program.
Because this case was decided on a motion to dismiss, we accept the allegations of Jackson's complaint as true.
According to the complaint, Jackson had been an employee of the Birmingham school district for over 10 years.
In 1993, he was hired to serve as a physical education teacher and the girls' basketball coach.
While Jackson was at Ensley High School, he discovered that the girls' team was not receiving equal funding and equal access to athletic equipment and facilities.
He began complaining to his supervisors about the unequal treatment of the girls' team, but his complaints went unanswered.
The school failed to remedy the situation.
Instead, he began to receive negative work evaluations and ultimately was removed as the girls' coach in May 2001.
After his coaching duties were terminated, Jackson filed the instant lawsuit in Federal District Court.
He alleged, among other things, that the Board violated Title IX by retaliating against him for protesting the discrimination against the girls' team.
The District Court dismissed the complaint on grounds that Title IX's private cause of action does not include claims of retaliation.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court today, we reverse the Eleventh Circuit's judgment.
Title IX provides that no person in the United States shall on the basis of sex be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
More than 25 years ago, in Cannon versus University of Chicago, we held that Title IX includes an implied private right of action to enforce its prohibition on intentional sex discrimination.
We hold today that Title IX's private cause of action encompasses claims of retaliation in response to a complaint about sex discrimination.
Retaliating against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is a form of intentional sex discrimination.
It is a type of discrimination because the complainant is being subjected to differential treatment.
It is on the basis of sex because it is an intentional response to the nature of the complaint to that an alligation of sex discrimination.
We do not decide today whether Jackson should prevail on the merits.
We hold only that his complaint should not have been dismissed and he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim.
Justice Thomas has filed a dissenting opinion which is joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Kennedy.
