Articles Posted in Title IX

A federal court in the Eastern District of Kentucky recently issued an order vacating the 2024 Title IX Final Rule.

The court concluded the Department of Education (“Department”) exceeded its statutory authority with the Final Rule.  According to the court’s opinion, the Department cited the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. In support of the Final Rule.  In Bostock, the Supreme Court concluded termination of an employee because of transgender status violated the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The Supreme Court noted that “transgender status [is] inextricably bound up with sex,” and therefore concluded discrimination based on transgender status meant the employer was intentionally treating the person differently because of their sex.

The Eastern District of Kentucky, however, determined the Department was applying the Bostock holding too broadly.  The court noted the Bostock holding was expressly limited to Title VII.  Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit previously acknowledged that the definition of discrimination under Title VII under Bostock did not apply to other anti-discrimination laws.  The court also pointed out that Title VII and Title IX “use materially different language.”  Title VII references discrimination “because of sex,” while Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex.”  Additionally, Title VII and Title IX have different goals and different defenses. Tennessee v. Cardona.

Continue reading

Alleged victims of sexual misconduct are often allowed to proceed in their Title IX lawsuits under a pseudonym, but courts have recently been split on whether to allow accused students filing Title IX lawsuits based on the school’s investigatory or disciplinary processes to do the same.  A federal court in Colorado recently decided to allow a male student accused of sexual misconduct to proceed with his lawsuit against the university and related defendants under the pseudonym “John Doe.”

The plaintiff was a student at a Colorado university who filed suit against the university and related defendants following an accusation that he had sexual contact with a child during behavioral therapy school. He alleged the investigation did not provide him with due process and was biased against him based on his sex. He alleged violations of due process rights and Title IX and other causes of action.

He filed a Motion for Leave to Restrict Access Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, seeking to proceed anonymously “due to the highly personal, sexually explicit, and confidential nature of the allegations” and concerns for reprisal that could affect his education and result in academic, financial, or mental harm.

Continue reading

A male student’s Title IX claim against his university arising from a Title IX investigation and disciplinary action against him recently survived a motion to dismiss in a New Jersey federal court.  According to the court’s unpublished opinion, the plaintiff and his former girlfriend were students in the same program at a public university in New Jersey.  In fall 2022, she told several classmates and three faculty members that he had sexually assaulted and harassed her.  The plaintiff alleged that he had told two professors she was spreading false rumors.

Title IX Allegations

In September 2022, a professor filed a complaint, alleging the plaintiff had engaged in “unwanted and inappropriate touching, . . . making unwanted advances towards students, and using abusive language.”

The plaintiff subsequently took a leave of absence and intended to return on October 17.  On October 16, a professor informed some students via email that the plaintiff would be back the next day.  The plaintiff alleged his former girlfriend shared the email with the whole class and he started getting threats from other students.

Continue reading

A Title IX discrimination case by a student accused of a Title IX violation can be difficult to prove.  A male student recently had his Title IX claims against his Illinois university dismissed. He was accused of sexual assault and the university imposed interim restrictions pending the investigation.  While the proceedings were pending, the university notified him he would be suspended while it investigated another allegation that he had used cocaine in a fraternity house.  The university subsequently found him responsible for sexual assault.

He filed suit in federal court in Illinois alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, as well as breach of contract. The university moved to dismiss. The plaintiff argued the investigation and adjudication were biased against him and the university retaliated when he challenged the bias.

Because it was a motion to dismiss, the court accepted the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true and viewed them in a light most favorable to him.

Continue reading

University sexual misconduct policies can reach a broad range of actions.  A female student recently sued her former university after it charged her with violations of the Code of Conduct for what occurred after she was allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted.

According to the court’s order, which recited the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the campus police at an Indiana university received a report of a partially nude woman.  An officer found the plaintiff, disoriented and wearing just a jacket.  The officer contacted EMS and the plaintiff was taken to the hospital.  EMS and the hospital staff thought she had been given a “date rape drug” and sexually assaulted.

The university charged the plaintiff with three violations of its Code of Conduct, alleging she had engaged in: lewd, indecent or obscene conduct or conduct that violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy; actions that endangered herself or others or the academic process; and unauthorized possession and use of alcohol.

Continue reading

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the government’s emergency applications for partial stays of the preliminary injunctions against the new Title IX Final Rule while the appeals are pending in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits.  The preliminary injunctions are not nationwide, but apply only to the plaintiffs.

The government argued the challenged provisions of the rule should be severed so that the rest of the Final Rule could take effect. Those provisions are 34 C.F.R. §106.10, which defines sex discrimination, §106.31(a)(2), which addresses sex-separated spaces and prohibits schools from adopting policies that prevent a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with their gender identity, and the definition of hostile environment harassment in §106.2.  The Court noted the lower courts had determined that the new definition of sex discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, affected many of the other provisions and could not readily be severed, at least at the preliminary stage.  The lower courts also noted that schools would have difficulty applying the Final Rule when parts of it were enjoined.

The government had the burden of showing that its severability argument was likely to succeed and that the equities favored a stay.  The Court concluded the government had not met that burden with the limited record and emergency applications.  The Court determined the government had not given it a sufficient basis to overturn the lower courts’ conclusions that the challenged provisions were intertwined with the other provisions or identified any specific provisions that were sufficiently independent.  In addressing the equities, the Court noted the Sixth Circuit had already expeditated the case and anticipated the Courts of Appeal “will render their decisions with appropriate dispatch.”

Continue reading

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has requested a partial stay of the preliminary injunctions against the new Title IX Final Rule in two lawsuits involving a total of ten states. The requests to the U.S. Supreme Court involve the injunction applicable to the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia in the lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the injunction applicable to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho in the lawsuit filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The DOJ asked the Court to issue stays to the extent the injunctions prohibit implementation of the portions of the Final Rule that were not challenged in the underlying lawsuits, arguing the plaintiffs had not challenged the “vast majority” of the changes made by the Final Rule.

The DOJ argued the district courts erred in enjoining the portions of the Final Rule that the plaintiffs had not challenged because of the principle that equitable relief is to be tailored to the alleged injuries and claims.

It also argued the courts erred by “enjoining Section 106.10’s clarification that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.” It further argued that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries could have been redressed with an injunction of “Section 106.31(a)(2) and Section 106.2’s definition of hostile-environment harassment as applied to gender-identity discrimination.” Furthermore, it argued the inclusion of gender-identity discrimination in Section 106.10 was required by the Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Continue reading

Two federal courts have granted preliminary injunctions enjoining the Department of Education (“Department”) from implementing or enforcing the new Final Rule, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance in certain states.

The States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana, and filed motions for preliminary injunction and motions for stay to prevent the Final Rule from taking effect on August 1, 2024.  The States of California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia filed an amici curaie brief opposing the motions.  The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits that the Final Rule is contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act, violates the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Cluse of the First Amendment, violates the Spending Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious.  The court also stated it showed “the abuse of power by executive federal agencies in the rulemaking process.” The court granted the motion for preliminary injunctions and enjoined and restrained the Department from implementing or enforcing the Final Rule and enjoined and restrained the Final Rule from going into effect on August 1, 2024, pending additional orders from the court.  This injunction only applies to the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

The States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia filed suit in the Eastern District of Kentucky to enjoin and invalidate the Final Rule.  The Christian Educators Association International and a fifteen-year-old female student identified as “A.C.” were allowed to file an Intervenor Complaint.  In its opinion, the Eastern District of Kentucky stated “the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”  The court concluded the Department exceeded its authority to promulgate regulations pursuant to Title IX because its interpretation conflicts with Title IX’s plain language.  The court also stated there were “serious First Amendment implications” with the Final Rule’s definition of sexual harassment, which the court determined could require educators to use student’s preferred pronouns, even if doing so conflicted with the educator’s own religious or moral beliefs.  The court further concluded the Department’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, stating the Department had not provided a reasoned explanation for departing from its previous interpretations or for leaving in place regulations that conflicted with the new requirements regarding gender-identity.

Continue reading

It can be difficult for a student who has faced disciplinary action for alleged misconduct to successfully show a Title IX violation by the school in the investigation and disciplinary process.  Even if they cannot show sex-based discrimination, in some cases, the student may be able to show the school violated their due process rights.

A medical student at an Indiana university filed suit after he was expelled from the university.  He appealed to the Seventh Circuit when the federal court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

According to the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, he was accused of physical abuse by a female student with whom he was romantically involved.  The Office of Student Conduct found him culpable and suspended him for a year.  The university placed conditions on his return.  The Student Promotions Committee for the medical school recommended expulsion, but the Dean rejected that recommendation.

Continue reading

The Department of Education has finally released the final rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (“Final Rule”).  The Final Rule makes significant changes to the Title IX regulations that were previously amended under the Trump administration in 2020.

The Final Rule specifically provides that sex-based discrimination includes discrimination based on “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”  A number of lawsuits have already been filed challenging protections related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Final Rule includes a new definition of “sex-based harassment” and removes the current definition of “sexual harassment.”  The definition identifies and defines three types of sex-based harassment: quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment harassment, and specific offenses.  The specific offenses include sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking.

Continue reading