jackson
birmingham
board
education
argued
november
decided
march
petitioner
girls
basketball
coach
public
high
school
discovered
team
receiving
equal
funding
equal
access
athletic
equipment
facilities
complained
unsuccessfully
supervisors
received
negative
work
evaluations
ultimately
removed
girls
coach
brought
suit
alleging
respondent
school
board
board
retaliated
complained
sex
discrimination
high
school
athletic
program
retaliation
violated
title
ix
education
amendments
provides
person
shall
basis
sex
subjected
discrimination
education
program
receiving
federal
financial
assistance
district
dismissed
complaint
ground
title
ix
private
cause
action
include
claims
retaliation
eleventh
circuit
agreed
affirmed
appeals
also
concluded
alexander
sandoval
department
education
title
ix
regulation
expressly
prohibiting
retaliation
create
private
cause
action
even
title
ix
prohibits
retaliation
petitioner
within
class
persons
statute
protects
held
title
ix
private
right
action
encompasses
claims
retaliation
individual
complained
sex
discrimination
pp
funding
recipient
retaliates
person
complains
sex
discrimination
constitutes
intentional
discrimination
basis
sex
violation
title
ix
held
title
ix
implies
private
right
action
enforce
prohibition
intentional
sex
discrimination
cannon
university
chicago
right
includes
actions
monetary
damages
private
persons
franklin
gwinnett
county
public
schools
encompasses
intentional
sex
discrimination
form
recipient
deliberate
indifference
sexual
harassment
student
teacher
gebser
lago
vista
independent
school
district
another
student
davis
monroe
county
bd
cases
relied
title
ix
broad
language
prohibiting
funding
recipient
intentionally
subjecting
person
discrimination
basis
sex
retaliation
definition
intentional
act
form
discrimination
complainant
subjected
differential
treatment
moreover
discrimination
basis
sex
intentional
response
nature
complaint
allegation
sex
discrimination
eleventh
circuit
conclusion
title
ix
prohibit
retaliation
silent
subject
ignores
import
repeated
holdings
construing
discrimination
title
ix
broadly
include
conduct
sexual
harassment
statute
expressly
mention
fact
title
vii
civil
rights
act
expressly
prohibits
retaliation
limited
use
respect
title
ix
title
vii
vastly
different
statute
details
conduct
constitutes
prohibited
discrimination
congress
list
specific
discriminatory
practices
title
ix
failure
mention
one
practice
says
nothing
whether
intended
practice
covered
moreover
congress
enactment
title
ix
three
years
sullivan
little
hunting
park
interpreted
general
prohibition
racial
discrimination
include
retaliation
white
man
advocating
rights
blacks
provides
realistic
basis
presuming
congress
expected
title
ix
interpreted
conformity
sullivan
pp
board
rely
holding
sandoval
supra
title
vi
civil
rights
act
prohibits
intentional
discrimination
private
parties
obtain
redress
discrimination
based
justice
department
title
vi
regulations
forbidding
federal
funding
recipients
adopting
policies
impact
citing
education
department
title
ix
retaliation
regulation
board
contends
jackson
like
sandoval
petitioners
seeks
impermissible
extension
statute
argues
title
ix
private
right
action
encompasses
retaliation
argument
however
entirely
misses
point
rely
education
department
regulation
title
ix
text
contains
necessary
prohibition
retaliation
person
speaks
sex
discrimination
intentional
discrimination
basis
sex
within
statute
meaning
pp
convinced
board
argument
even
title
ix
private
right
action
encompasses
discrimination
jackson
entitled
invoke
indirect
victi
sex
discrimination
statute
broadly
worded
require
victim
retaliation
also
victim
discrimination
subject
original
complaint
retaliation
occurs
complainant
speaks
sex
discrimination
statute
basis
sex
requirement
satisfied
complainant
victim
discriminatory
retaliation
regardless
whether
subject
original
complaint
cf
sullivan
supra
congress
enacted
title
ix
prevent
use
federal
dollars
support
discriminatory
practices
also
provide
individual
citizens
effective
protection
practices
cannon
supra
objective
difficult
achieve
persons
complaining
sex
discrimination
effective
protection
retaliation
pp
board
rely
principle
title
ix
enacted
exercise
congress
spending
clause
powers
private
damages
action
available
federal
funding
recipient
adequate
notice
held
liable
conduct
issue
see
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
pennhurst
preclude
action
funding
recipient
engages
intentional
acts
clearly
violate
title
ix
see
davis
supra
moreover
board
put
notice
held
liable
retaliation
fact
cases
since
cannon
consistently
interpreted
title
ix
private
cause
action
broadly
encompass
diverse
forms
intentional
sex
discrimination
title
ix
expressly
prohibits
intentional
conduct
violates
clear
statutory
terms
davis
regulations
implementing
title
ix
clearly
prohibit
retaliation
books
nearly
years
holdings
courts
appeals
considered
question
time
conduct
issue
title
ix
covers
retaliation
board
realistically
supposed
given
context
remained
free
retaliate
reported
sex
discrimination
cf
pp
prevail
merits
jackson
prove
board
retaliated
complained
sex
discrimination
present
stage
issue
whether
ultimately
prevail
whether
entitled
offer
evidence
support
claims
reversed
remanded
delivered
opinion
stevens
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
joined
roderick
jackson
petitioner
birmingham
board
education
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
march
justice
delivered
opinion
roderick
jackson
teacher
birmingham
alabama
public
schools
brought
suit
birmingham
board
education
board
alleging
board
retaliated
complained
sex
discrimination
high
school
athletic
program
jackson
claimed
board
retaliation
violated
title
ix
education
amendments
pub
stat
amended
et
seq
district
dismissed
jackson
complaint
ground
title
ix
prohibit
retaliation
appeals
eleventh
circuit
affirmed
consider
whether
private
right
action
implied
title
ix
encompasses
claims
retaliation
hold
funding
recipient
retaliates
individual
complained
sex
discrimination
jackson
title
ix
claim
dismissed
federal
rule
civil
procedure
failure
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
must
assume
truth
material
facts
alleged
complaint
summit
health
pinhas
according
complaint
jackson
employee
birmingham
school
district
years
board
hired
jackson
serve
physical
education
teacher
girls
basketball
coach
jackson
transferred
ensley
high
school
august
ensley
discovered
girls
team
receiving
equal
funding
equal
access
athletic
equipment
facilities
lack
adequate
funding
equipment
facilities
made
difficult
jackson
job
team
coach
december
jackson
began
complaining
supervisors
unequal
treatment
girls
basketball
team
avail
jackson
complaints
went
unanswered
school
failed
remedy
situation
instead
jackson
began
receive
negative
work
evaluations
ultimately
removed
girls
coach
may
jackson
still
employed
board
teacher
longer
receives
supplemental
pay
coaching
board
terminated
jackson
coaching
duties
filed
suit
district
northern
district
alabama
alleged
among
things
board
violated
title
ix
retaliating
protesting
discrimination
girls
basketball
team
amended
complaint
app
board
moved
dismiss
ground
title
ix
private
cause
action
include
claims
retaliation
district
granted
motion
dismiss
appeals
eleventh
circuit
affirmed
assumed
purposes
appeal
board
retaliated
jackson
complaining
title
ix
violations
held
jackson
suit
failed
state
claim
title
ix
provide
private
right
action
retaliation
reasoning
othing
text
indicates
congressional
concern
retaliation
might
visited
complain
title
ix
violations
relying
decision
alexander
sandoval
appeals
also
concluded
department
education
regulation
expressly
prohibiting
retaliation
create
private
cause
action
retaliation
congress
created
right
title
ix
redress
harms
resulting
retaliation
regulation
may
read
create
one
either
finally
held
even
title
ix
prohibits
retaliation
jackson
entitled
relief
within
class
persons
protected
statute
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
circuits
whether
title
ix
private
right
action
encompasses
claims
retaliation
complaints
sex
discrimination
compare
lowrey
texas
univ
system
itle
ix
affords
implied
cause
action
retaliation
preston
virginia
ex
rel
new
river
community
college
case
supra
ii
title
ix
prohibits
sex
discrimination
recipients
federal
education
funding
statute
provides
person
shall
basis
sex
excluded
participation
denied
benefits
subjected
discrimination
education
program
activity
receiving
federal
financial
assistance
years
ago
cannon
university
chicago
held
title
ix
implies
private
right
action
enforce
prohibition
intentional
sex
discrimination
subsequent
cases
defined
contours
right
action
franklin
gwinnett
county
public
schools
held
authorizes
private
parties
seek
monetary
damages
intentional
violations
title
ix
also
held
private
right
action
encompasses
intentional
sex
discrimination
form
recipient
deliberate
indifference
teacher
sexual
harassment
student
gebser
lago
vista
independent
school
sexual
harassment
student
another
student
davis
monroe
county
bd
cases
relied
text
title
ix
subject
list
narrow
exceptions
issue
broadly
prohibits
funding
recipient
subjecting
person
discrimination
basis
sex
retaliation
person
person
complained
sex
discrimination
another
form
intentional
sex
discrimination
encompassed
title
ix
private
cause
action
retaliation
definition
intentional
act
form
discrimination
complainant
subjected
differential
treatment
see
generally
olmstead
kennedy
concurring
judgment
normal
definition
discrimination
differential
treatment
see
also
newport
news
shipbuilding
dry
dock
eeoc
discrimination
means
less
favorable
treatment
moreover
retaliation
discrimination
basis
sex
intentional
response
nature
complaint
allegation
sex
discrimination
conclude
funding
recipient
retaliates
person
complains
sex
discrimination
constitutes
intentional
discrimination
basis
sex
violation
title
ix
appeals
conclusion
title
ix
prohibit
retaliation
statute
makes
mention
retaliation
ignores
import
repeated
holdings
construing
discrimination
title
ix
broadly
though
statute
mention
sexual
harassment
held
sexual
harassment
intentional
discrimination
encompassed
title
ix
private
right
action
franklin
supervisor
sexually
harasses
subordinate
subordinate
sex
supervisor
discriminate
basis
sex
holding
rule
apply
teacher
sexually
harasses
student
thus
recipient
deliberate
indifference
teacher
sexual
harassment
student
also
violate
title
ix
plain
terms
davis
supra
citing
gebser
supra
likewise
recipient
deliberate
indifference
sexual
harassment
student
another
student
also
squarely
constitutes
discrimination
basis
sex
davis
courts
title
ix
sweep
broad
congress
certainly
mentioned
retaliation
title
ix
expressly
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
stat
providing
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
retaliate
employee
opposed
practice
made
unlawful
employment
practice
title
vii
made
charge
testified
assisted
participated
manner
investigation
proceeding
hearing
title
vii
title
vii
however
vastly
different
statute
title
ix
see
gebser
comparison
board
urges
us
draw
therefore
limited
use
title
ix
cause
action
implied
title
vii
express
see
title
ix
broadly
written
general
prohibition
discrimination
followed
specific
narrow
exceptions
broad
prohibition
see
contrast
title
vii
spells
greater
detail
conduct
constitutes
discrimination
violation
statute
see
giving
examples
unlawful
employment
practices
prohibiting
ther
unlawful
employment
practices
including
discrimination
form
retaliation
discriminatory
practice
rinting
publication
notices
advertisements
indicating
prohibited
preference
congress
list
specific
discriminatory
practices
wrote
title
ix
failure
mention
one
practice
tell
us
anything
whether
intended
practice
covered
title
ix
enacted
three
years
decision
sullivan
little
hunting
park
sullivan
held
rev
stat
provides
citizens
shall
right
enjoyed
white
citizens
inherit
purchase
lease
sell
hold
convey
real
personal
property
protected
white
man
spoke
discrimination
toward
one
tenants
suffered
retaliation
result
sullivan
rented
house
black
man
assigned
membership
share
use
rights
private
park
corporation
owned
park
approve
assignment
black
lessee
sullivan
protested
corporation
retaliated
expelling
taking
shares
sullivan
sued
corporation
upheld
sullivan
cause
action
retaliation
advocacy
black
person
cause
thus
sullivan
interpreted
general
prohibition
racial
discrimination
cover
retaliation
advocate
rights
groups
protected
congress
enacted
title
ix
three
years
sullivan
decided
accordingly
decision
provides
valuable
context
understanding
statute
recognized
cannon
appropriate
also
realistic
presume
congress
thoroughly
familiar
sullivan
expected
enactment
title
ix
interpreted
conformity
see
also
retaliation
jackson
advocacy
rights
girls
basketball
team
case
discrimination
basis
sex
retaliation
advocacy
behalf
black
lessee
sullivan
discrimination
basis
race
board
contends
decision
alexander
sandoval
compels
holding
title
ix
private
right
action
encompass
retaliation
sandoval
involved
interpretation
title
vi
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
et
provides
person
shall
ground
race
color
national
origin
excluded
participation
denied
benefits
subjected
discrimination
program
activity
covered
title
vi
section
title
vi
authorizes
federal
agencies
effectuate
provisions
enacting
regulations
pursuant
authority
department
justice
promulgated
regulations
forbidding
funding
recipients
adopting
policies
effect
subjecting
individuals
discrimination
race
color
national
origin
cfr
sandoval
petitioners
brought
suit
enjoin
policy
alabama
department
public
safety
grounds
disparately
impacted
speakers
violation
regulations
though
assumed
regulations
valid
see
private
plaintiff
may
bring
suit
based
regulation
defendant
acts
prohibited
text
statute
thus
sandoval
held
private
parties
may
invoke
title
vi
regulations
obtain
redress
discrimination
title
vi
prohibits
intentional
discrimination
board
cites
department
education
regulation
prohibiting
retaliation
individual
purpose
interfering
right
privilege
secured
title
ix
cfr
incorporated
reference
contends
jackson
like
petitioners
sandoval
seeks
impermissible
extension
statute
argues
title
ix
private
right
action
encompasses
retaliation
brief
respondent
argument
however
entirely
misses
point
rely
regulations
extending
title
ix
protection
beyond
statutory
limits
indeed
rely
department
education
regulation
statute
contains
necessary
prohibition
explain
see
supra
text
title
ix
prohibits
funding
recipient
retaliating
person
speaks
sex
discrimination
retaliation
intentional
discrimination
basis
sex
reach
result
based
statute
text
step
sandoval
hold
title
ix
private
right
action
encompasses
suits
retaliation
retaliation
falls
within
statute
prohibition
intentional
discrimination
basis
sex
convinced
board
argument
even
title
ix
private
right
action
encompasses
discrimination
jackson
entitled
invoke
indirect
victi
sex
discrimination
brief
respondent
statute
broadly
worded
require
victim
retaliation
must
also
victim
discrimination
subject
original
complaint
statute
provided
instead
person
shall
subjected
discrimination
basis
individual
sex
agree
board
cf
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
discriminate
individual
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
emphasis
added
however
title
ix
contains
limitation
retaliation
occurs
complainant
speaks
sex
discrimination
basis
sex
requirement
satisfied
complainant
victim
discriminatory
retaliation
regardless
whether
subject
original
explain
see
supra
consistent
sullivan
formed
important
part
backdrop
congress
enacted
title
ix
sullivan
made
clear
retaliation
claims
extend
oppose
discrimination
others
see
holding
person
may
bring
suit
show
punished
trying
vindicate
rights
minorities
congress
enacted
title
ix
prevent
use
federal
dollars
support
discriminatory
practices
also
provide
individual
citizens
effective
protection
practices
cannon
agree
objective
difficult
impossible
achieve
persons
complain
sex
discrimination
effective
protection
retaliation
brief
amicus
curiae
recipients
permitted
retaliate
freely
individuals
witness
discrimination
loathe
report
manner
title
ix
violations
might
go
unremedied
result
see
sullivan
supra
noting
without
protection
retaliation
underlying
discrimination
perpetuated
reporting
incidents
discrimination
integral
title
ix
enforcement
discouraged
retaliation
report
went
unpunished
indeed
retaliation
prohibited
title
ix
enforcement
scheme
unravel
recall
congress
intended
title
ix
private
right
action
encompass
claims
recipient
deliberate
indifference
sexual
harassment
see
generally
davis
accordingly
principal
sexually
harasses
student
teacher
complains
school
board
school
board
indifferent
board
likely
liable
title
ix
violation
see
generally
gebser
title
ix
private
right
action
encompass
retaliation
claims
teacher
recourse
subsequently
fired
speaking
without
protection
retaliation
individuals
witness
discrimination
likely
report
indifference
claims
underlying
discrimination
go
unremedied
title
ix
enforcement
scheme
also
depends
individual
reporting
individuals
agencies
may
bring
suit
statute
unless
recipient
received
actual
notice
discrimination
holding
appropriate
official
recipient
must
actual
knowledge
discrimination
respond
deliberate
indifference
private
party
may
bring
suit
providing
federal
agency
may
terminate
funding
advised
appropriate
person
persons
failure
comply
requirement
determined
compliance
secured
voluntary
means
recipients
able
avoid
notice
retaliating
dare
complain
statute
enforcement
scheme
subverted
assume
congress
left
gap
scheme
moreover
teachers
coaches
jackson
often
best
position
vindicate
rights
students
better
able
identify
discrimination
bring
attention
administrators
indeed
sometimes
adult
employees
effective
adversar
ies
discrimination
schools
see
sullivan
supra
white
owner
times
effective
adversary
unlawful
restrictive
covenant
citing
barrows
jackson
board
correct
pointing
title
ix
enacted
exercise
congress
powers
spending
clause
see
davis
supra
gebser
supra
franklin
private
damages
actions
available
recipients
federal
funding
adequate
notice
liable
conduct
issue
davis
supra
congress
enacts
legislation
spending
power
legislation
nature
contract
return
federal
funds
agree
comply
federally
imposed
conditions
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
recognized
knowing
acceptance
terms
contract
state
unaware
conditions
imposed
legislation
receipt
funds
ibid
board
insists
interpret
title
ix
prohibit
retaliation
notice
held
liable
retaliating
complain
title
ix
violations
disagree
funding
recipients
notice
subjected
private
suits
intentional
sex
discrimination
title
ix
since
decided
cannon
pennhurst
preclude
private
suits
intentional
acts
clearly
violate
title
ix
davis
supra
indeed
davis
held
pennhurst
pose
obstacle
private
suits
damages
cases
recipient
deliberate
indifference
one
student
sexual
harassment
another
deliberate
indifference
constituted
intentional
discrimination
basis
sex
davis
supra
see
also
franklin
supra
congress
surely
intend
federal
monies
expended
support
intentional
actions
sought
statute
proscribe
similarly
held
gebser
recipient
federal
funding
held
liable
damages
title
ix
deliberate
indifference
teacher
harassment
student
holding
sufficient
notice
pennhurst
statute
made
clear
conditions
placed
receipt
federal
funds
stating
congress
need
specifically
identif
proscrib
condition
legislation
simply
put
pennhurst
bar
private
damages
action
title
ix
funding
recipient
engages
intentional
conduct
violates
clear
terms
statute
davis
thus
board
put
notice
fact
cases
since
cannon
gebser
davis
consistently
interpreted
title
ix
private
cause
action
broadly
encompass
diverse
forms
intentional
sex
discrimination
indeed
retaliation
presents
even
easier
case
deliberate
indifference
easily
attributable
funding
recipient
always
definition
intentional
therefore
conclude
retaliation
individuals
complain
sex
discrimination
intentional
conduct
violates
clear
terms
statute
davis
title
ix
therefore
supplied
sufficient
notice
board
retaliate
jackson
complained
discrimination
girls
basketball
team
regulations
implementing
title
ix
clearly
prohibit
retaliation
books
nearly
years
holding
title
ix
regulatory
scheme
long
provided
funding
recipients
notice
may
liable
failure
respond
discriminatory
acts
certain
nonagents
importantly
courts
appeals
considered
question
time
conduct
issue
case
already
interpreted
title
ix
cover
retaliation
see
lowrey
preston
board
realistically
supposed
given
context
remained
free
retaliate
reported
sex
discrimination
cf
davis
supra
stating
common
law
torts
put
schools
notice
may
held
responsible
state
law
failure
protect
students
tortious
acts
third
parties
reasonable
school
board
realize
institutions
covered
title
ix
cover
violations
law
means
discriminatory
retaliation
prevail
merits
jackson
prove
board
retaliated
complained
sex
discrimination
amended
complaint
alleges
board
retaliated
jackson
complaining
supervisor
evelyn
baugh
sex
discrimination
ensley
high
school
stage
proceedings
issue
whether
plaintiff
ultimately
prevail
whether
claimant
entitled
offer
evidence
support
claims
scheuer
rhodes
accordingly
judgment
appeals
eleventh
circuit
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
roderick
jackson
petitioner
birmingham
board
education
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
march
justice
thomas
chief
justice
justice
scalia
justice
kennedy
join
dissenting
holds
private
right
action
title
ix
education
amendments
sex
discrimination
implied
cannon
university
chicago
extends
claims
retaliation
holding
contrary
plain
terms
title
ix
retaliatory
conduct
discrimination
basis
sex
moreover
require
congress
speak
unambiguously
imposing
conditions
funding
recipients
spending
power
cases
party
asserts
cause
action
implied
require
statute
evince
plain
intent
provide
cause
action
section
title
ix
meets
none
requirements
therefore
respectfully
dissent
title
ix
provides
education
funding
subject
condition
person
shall
basis
sex
excluded
participation
denied
benefits
subjected
discrimination
education
program
activity
receiving
federal
financial
assistance
section
refer
retaliation
consequently
statute
prohibits
conduct
falls
within
prohibition
discrimination
basis
sex
claim
retaliation
claim
discrimination
basis
sex
context
natural
meaning
phrase
basis
sex
basis
plaintiff
sex
sex
person
see
leocal
ashcroft
slip
interpreting
statute
must
give
words
ordinary
natural
meaning
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
example
suppose
sexist
air
traffic
controller
withheld
landing
permission
plane
pilot
woman
sex
discrimination
female
pilot
doubt
adversely
impacted
male
passengers
aboard
plane
one
never
say
discriminated
basis
sex
controller
action
congress
usage
phrase
basis
sex
confirms
commonsense
conclusion
even
within
title
vii
civil
rights
act
congress
used
phrase
basis
sex
shorthand
discrimination
basis
individual
sex
specifically
ensuring
title
vii
reached
discrimination
pregnancy
congress
provided
terms
sex
basis
sex
include
limited
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
cf
california
fed
sav
loan
assn
guerra
describing
congress
amended
title
vii
specify
sex
discrimination
included
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
reference
basis
sex
provision
must
refer
title
vii
prohibition
discrimination
individual
sex
suggesting
congress
used
phrases
interchangeably
title
vii
general
prohibition
discriminatory
employer
practices
use
terms
sex
basis
sex
uses
phrase
individual
sex
ibid
also
consistently
used
phrase
basis
sex
shorthand
basis
claimant
sex
see
burke
meritor
savings
bank
fsb
vinson
thus
claim
claim
discrimination
basis
sex
claimant
sex
must
actually
played
role
decisionmaking
process
determinative
influence
outcome
hazen
paper
biggins
cf
teamsters
treatment
easily
understood
type
discrimination
employer
simply
treats
people
less
favorably
others
race
color
religion
sex
protected
trait
jackson
assertion
birmingham
board
educaton
board
retaliated
fails
allege
sex
discrimination
sense
jackson
claim
sex
played
role
let
alone
decisive
predominant
one
decision
relieve
position
instead
avers
complained
supervisor
sex
discrimination
girls
basketball
team
sometime
subsequent
complaints
lost
coaching
position
app
best
alleges
discrimination
basis
sex
founded
attenuated
connection
supposed
adverse
treatment
sex
others
jackson
claim
retaliation
claim
sex
played
role
adverse
treatment
statute
plain
terms
encompass
jackson
lawsuit
therefore
differs
fundamentally
examples
sex
discrimination
like
sexual
harassment
ante
victim
sexual
harassment
suffers
discrimination
sex
someone
else
cases
held
reaches
claims
vicarious
liability
sexual
harassment
therefore
inapposite
see
davis
monroe
county
bd
gebser
lago
vista
independent
school
franklin
gwinnett
county
public
schools
fact
virtually
every
case
addressed
title
ix
concerned
claimant
sought
recover
discrimination
sex
davis
supra
national
collegiate
athletic
assn
smith
gebser
supra
franklin
supra
mississippi
univ
women
hogan
north
bd
ed
bell
cannon
jackson
makes
claim
moreover
jackson
retaliation
claim
lacks
connection
actual
sex
discrimination
statute
requires
jackson
claims
suffered
reprisal
complained
sex
discrimination
sex
discrimination
underlying
complaint
occurred
feature
jackson
complaint
surprising
since
retaliation
claimant
need
prove
sex
discrimination
happened
although
never
addressed
question
appeals
requires
complainant
show
reasonable
belief
discrimination
occurred
prevail
retaliation
retaliation
therefore
said
discrimination
basis
anyone
sex
retaliation
claim
may
succeed
sex
discrimination
ever
took
place
majority
ignores
fundamental
characteristics
retaliation
claims
sole
justification
holding
jackson
suffered
sex
discrimination
statement
retaliation
discrimination
basis
sex
intentional
response
nature
complaint
allegation
sex
discrimination
ante
topic
complaint
overcome
fact
retaliation
based
anyone
sex
much
less
complainer
sex
example
coach
complains
school
officials
dismantling
men
swimming
team
honestly
reasonably
incorrectly
believes
occurring
sex
team
fired
may
prevail
yet
discriminated
basis
sex
sex
played
role
men
swimming
team
expressed
concern
also
suffered
discrimination
basis
sex
short
discrimination
basis
sex
occurred
bottom
petitioner
much
concedes
retaliation
claim
aids
enforcing
another
separate
distinct
right
brief
petitioner
noting
relationship
retaliation
bears
primary
discrimination
contexts
recognized
protection
retaliation
separate
direct
protection
primary
right
serves
prophylactic
measure
guard
primary
right
see
britton
reason
retaliation
offends
constitution
threatens
inhibit
exercise
protected
right
explained
regard
title
vii
retaliation
prohibition
primary
purpose
antiretaliation
provisions
aintaining
unfettered
access
statutory
remedial
mechanisms
robinson
shell
oil
describe
retaliation
discrimination
basis
sex
conflate
enforcement
mechanism
right
something
statute
text
provides
warrant
moreover
text
title
ix
mention
retaliation
significant
contrast
title
ix
congress
enacted
separate
provision
title
vii
address
retaliation
addition
general
prohibition
discrimination
congress
failure
include
similar
text
title
ix
shows
authorize
private
retaliation
actions
difference
dismissed
majority
suggests
ground
title
vii
specific
statute
congress
proscribed
particular
practices
opposed
general
prohibition
ante
fact
congress
created
specific
prohibitions
title
vii
evidence
intended
preclude
courts
implying
similar
specific
prohibitions
title
ix
even
apart
title
vii
congress
expressly
prohibited
retaliation
discrimination
statutes
see
americans
disabilities
act
age
discrimination
employment
act
prohibition
discrimination
plainly
encompasses
retaliation
explicit
reference
statutes
well
title
vii
superfluous
result
eschew
statutory
interpretation
better
explanation
congress
intends
include
prohibition
retaliation
statute
see
central
bank
denver
first
interstate
bank
denver
failure
therefore
telling
ii
holding
also
inconsistent
two
lines
precedent
rule
congress
must
speak
clear
voice
imposes
liability
spending
power
refusal
imply
cause
action
congress
intent
create
right
remedy
evident
majority
acknowledges
congress
enacted
title
ix
pursuant
spending
power
ante
citing
davis
see
also
barnes
gorman
acceptance
voluntary
knowing
funding
recipients
must
notice
potential
liability
davis
barnes
supra
holding
casts
aside
principle
explained
supra
statute
plain
terms
authorize
claims
retaliation
analysis
shows
least
statute
clearly
authorize
retaliation
claims
majority
points
statute
say
person
shall
subjected
discrimination
basis
individual
sex
ante
emphasis
original
reasoning
puts
analysis
backwards
question
whether
congress
clearly
excluded
retaliation
claims
title
ix
whether
clearly
included
majority
statement
best
points
ambiguity
statute
yet
ambiguity
resolved
favor
must
aware
accept
federal
funds
obligations
thereby
agree
assume
majority
asserts
board
put
notice
fact
cases
since
cannon
gebser
davis
consistently
interpreted
title
ix
cause
action
broadly
encompass
diverse
forms
intentional
sex
discrimination
ante
gebser
davis
hold
imply
title
ix
prohibited
diverse
forms
intentional
sex
discrimination
held
schools
held
vicariously
liable
sexual
harassment
committed
students
teachers
see
gebser
supra
davis
supra
question
sexual
harassment
cases
sex
discrimination
see
meritor
savings
without
question
supervisor
sexually
harasses
subordinate
subordinate
sex
supervisor
basis
sex
cases
hardly
gave
notice
board
retaliation
liability
loomed
important
rationale
untethers
notice
statute
board
title
ix
recipients
must
assume
conduct
linked
sex
discrimination
matter
attenuated
link
impose
liability
title
ix
regulation
proscribing
retaliation
title
ix
administrative
enforcement
proceedings
answer
ante
says
nothing
whether
retaliation
discrimination
basis
sex
much
less
whether
private
cause
action
conduct
rather
requiring
clarity
congress
majority
requires
clairvoyance
funding
recipients
even
apart
clarity
consistently
require
obligations
imposed
spending
power
legislation
extending
cause
action
implied
cannon
jackson
claim
contradicts
standard
set
implying
causes
action
enforce
federal
statutes
whether
statute
supplies
cause
action
matter
statutory
interpretation
see
touche
ross
redington
must
examine
whether
statute
creates
right
right
must
phrased
terms
person
benefited
gonzaga
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
virginia
bankshares
sandberg
inquiry
merely
whether
statute
benefits
class
people
whether
class
includes
plaintiff
case
us
role
provide
remedies
necessary
make
effective
congressional
purpose
expressed
statute
examine
text
congress
enacted
law
alexander
sandoval
quoting
case
borak
virginia
bankshares
supra
touche
ross
supra
statute
evinces
intent
create
right
plaintiff
case
us
imply
cause
action
held
principles
apply
equally
previously
found
statute
question
provides
implied
right
action
party
attempts
expand
class
persons
conduct
recognized
action
applies
virginia
bankshares
supra
specifically
rejected
creation
implied
causes
action
ancillary
claims
like
retaliation
central
bank
concluded
securities
exchange
act
stat
amended
provided
civil
action
aid
abet
individuals
engaging
manipulative
deceptive
practices
though
respondents
urged
claim
necessary
fulfill
statute
protection
deceit
securities
marketplace
declined
even
though
implied
cause
action
see
borak
supra
view
statute
language
potentially
reached
conduct
aiders
abettors
full
scope
liability
aiding
abetting
extended
liability
beyond
conduct
prohibited
statute
central
bank
surveyed
statutes
found
congress
knew
impose
aiding
abetting
liability
chose
view
statute
reach
aiding
abetting
also
confirmed
fact
element
critical
recovery
actions
engaging
fraudulent
manipulative
acts
required
proving
someone
aided
abetted
persons
reasons
militate
equally
extending
implied
cause
action
title
ix
retaliation
claims
central
bank
imposing
retaliation
liability
expands
statute
beyond
discrimination
basis
sex
instances
discrimination
basis
sex
occurred
protects
individuals
discrimination
basis
sex
supra
thus
extending
implied
cause
action
title
ix
claims
retaliation
expands
class
people
statute
protects
beyond
specified
beneficiaries
absence
aiding
abetting
statute
issue
central
bank
find
instructive
expressly
prohibit
retaliation
discrimination
statutes
explicitly
like
aiding
abetting
liability
central
bank
prevailing
claim
retaliation
lacks
elements
necessary
prevailing
claim
discrimination
basis
sex
sex
discrimination
need
occurred
majority
reliance
sullivan
little
hunting
park
wholly
misplaced
ante
rather
holding
general
prohibition
discrimination
permitted
claim
retaliation
sullivan
held
white
lessor
standing
assert
right
black
lessee
free
racial
discrimination
pursuant
rev
stat
standing
case
make
claim
behalf
black
lessee
white
lessor
necessarily
required
demonstrate
defendant
discriminated
black
lessee
basis
race
jackson
contrast
need
show
sex
discrimination
forming
basis
complaints
actually
occurred
thus
recognizing
jackson
claim
majority
creates
entirely
new
cause
action
secondary
rights
holder
beyond
claim
original
rights
holder
well
beyond
sullivan
event
sullivan
involved
statute
enacted
pursuant
congress
thirteenth
amendment
enforcement
power
jones
alfred
mayer
spending
power
sullivan
therefore
says
nothing
whether
title
ix
clearly
conditions
receipt
federal
funds
retaliation
liability
iii
establishes
prophylactic
enforcement
mechanism
designed
encourage
whistleblowing
sex
discrimination
language
title
ix
support
holding
majority
also
offers
nothing
demonstrate
prophylactic
rule
necessary
effectuate
statutory
scheme
nothing
prevents
students
parents
complaining
inequality
facilities
treatment
see
franklin
student
brought
suit
davis
suit
brought
minor
parent
majority
reasoning
courts
may
expand
liability
rather
congress
see
fit
idle
worry
next
step
say
someone
closely
associated
complainer
claims
suffered
retaliation
complaints
likewise
retaliation
claim
title
ix
see
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
compliance
manual
unlawful
respondent
retaliate
employee
spouse
also
employee
filed
eeoc
charge
crafting
additional
enforcement
mechanism
majority
returns
days
created
remedies
whole
cloth
effectuate
vision
congressional
purpose
majority
substitutes
policy
judgments
bargains
struck
congress
reflected
statute
text
question
us
whether
title
ix
prohibits
retaliation
whether
prohibiting
good
policy
central
bank
reasons
addressed
hold
encompass
private
actions
retaliation
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
justice
thomas
contends
sullivan
merely
decided
white
owner
standing
assert
rights
black
lessee
post
dissenting
opinion
sullivan
holding
limited
plainly
held
white
owner
maintain
private
cause
action
show
punished
trying
vindicate
rights
minorities
agree
justice
thomas
plaintiffs
may
assert
claims
title
ix
conduct
prohibited
statute
post
dissenting
opinion
see
also
central
bank
denver
first
interstate
bank
denver
private
plaintiff
may
bring
suit
defendant
acts
prohibited
text
part
ways
regard
reading
statute
interpret
title
ix
text
clearly
prohibit
retaliation
complaints
sex
discrimination
justice
thomas
contends
extending
implied
cause
action
title
ix
claims
retaliation
expands
class
people
statute
protects
beyond
specific
beneficiaries
post
dissenting
opinion
title
ix
beneficiaries
plainly
include
subjected
discrimination
basis
sex
explain
see
supra
retaliation
response
complaint
sex
discrimination
discrimination
basis
sex
statute
clearly
protects
suffer
retaliation
following
hypothetical
offered
petitioner
oral
argument
illustrates
point
male
captain
boys
basketball
team
female
captain
girls
basketball
team
together
approach
school
principal
complain
discrimination
girls
team
principal
retaliates
expelling
honor
society
female
male
captains
discriminated
basis
sex
tr
oral
arg
footnotes
see
higgins
new
balance
athletic
shoe
gregory
daly
aman
cort
furniture
rental
byers
dallas
morning
news
johnson
university
cincinnati
talanda
kfc
nat
management
eeoc
hbe
moore
california
inst
technology
jet
propulsion
crumpacker
kansas
dept
human
resources
meeks
computer
assoc
parker
baltimore
ohio
cadc
cf
clark
county
school
dist
breeden
per
curiam
reasonable
person
believed
incident
constituted
sex
harassment
violating
title
vii
employee
prevail
retaliation
claim
tellingly
adopt
rationale
offered
petitioner
oral
argument
according
petitioner
ut
discrimination
basis
sex
complained
made
complaint
sex
discrimination
lost
coaching
position
tr
oral
arg
chain
exposes
faulty
premise
position
retaliation
basis
sex
first
necessary
step
chain
causation
discrimination
basis
sex
occurred
yet
retaliation
claims
require
proving
thing
thus
link
articulated
counsel
discrimination
basis
sex
adverse
employment
action
exist
see
also
great
american
fed
sav
loan
assn
novotny
white
dissenting
clearly
respondent
right
free
retaliation
efforts
aid
others
asserting
title
vii
rights
distinct
title
vii
right
implicated
claim
right
women
employees
discriminated
basis
sex
title
provides
citizens
shall
right
every
state
territory
enjoyed
white
citizens
thereof
inherit
purchase
lease
sell
hold
convey
real
personal
property