What’s at Stake
Whether school employees, including faculty, coaches, and staff, can vindicate their rights under Title IX to be free from sex discrimination in their employment.
Case Summary
MaChelle Joseph served as head women’s basketball coach at Georgia Tech. She repeatedly complained that the university provided her program with inferior resources compared to the men’s basketball team. Shortly after she filed an internal complaint, Georgia Tech hired an outside investigator to examine her coaching conduct and fired her weeks later based on the investigator’s finding she had created a harmful environment for players.
Thomas Crowther taught art at Augusta University. Several students complained he had sexually harassed them, triggering a Title IX investigation. Crowther argued the investigation was biased against him as a male respondent—he alleged that the university refused to identify his accusers, didn’t interview most of his witnesses, and gave him his first negative performance review in nearly fifteen years during the investigation. After investigators found he had violated the university’s sexual harassment policy, Augusta effectively terminated him.
Joseph and Crowther sued separately under Title IX as employees of federally funded universities. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and held that Title IX does not allow school employees alleging sex discrimination in employment to sue—affirming the district court’s dismissal of Joseph’s Title IX claims and reversing the district court’s denial of the university’s motion to dismiss Crowther’s claims. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review of their cases in May 2026.
For decades, employees of federally funded schools and universities have relied on Title IX as a critical tool for challenging sex discrimination in their workplaces — alongside, not instead of, Title VII. If the Supreme Court affirms the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, employees, such as faculty, coaches, and staff, at thousands of educational institutions nationwide would lose that avenue entirely, left to pursue limited relief under Title VII’s narrower administrative process.
Public Justice joined an amicus brief filed by the National Women’s Law Center and Mehri & Skalet. The brief argues that Title IX’s legislative history confirms Congress’s intent to eliminate discrimination against a broad class of individuals, including employees, and that the Supreme Court’s precedent confirms that Title IX protects students and employees alike. The brief also explains that discrimination against women in education persists today—making the guarantee to enforce Title IX rights in courts all the more important.
Core Legal Questions
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bars sex discrimination in any educational program that receives federal funding. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether Title IX provides a private right of action for employees of federally funded institutions. In answering this question, the Court will consider whether Congress intended for Title VII’s employment discrimination scheme to be school employees’ exclusive remedy for discrimination claims—or whether Congress intended for both statutes to operate in tandem.