| Title IX: Volume 2 Contributor(s): Publications, Landmark (Author) |
|
 |
ISBN: ISBN-13: 9798579610690 Publisher: Independently Published OUR PRICE: $53.15 Product Type: Paperback - Other Formats Published: December 2020 |
| Additional Information |
| BISAC Categories: - Law | Educational Law & Legislation - Law | Gender & The Law |
| Physical Information: 1.1" H x 6" W x 9" (1.58 lbs) 544 pages |
| Descriptions, Reviews, Etc. |
| Publisher Description: THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret, and apply provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Title IX provides: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). Though the statute contains no express private right of action, the Supreme Court has held that individuals may sue funding recipients for violating Title IX. See Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). And the Court has held that this implied right of action includes retaliation claims, explaining that "when a funding recipient retaliates against a person because he complains of sex discrimination, this constitutes intentional 'discrimination' 'on the basis of sex, ' in violation of Title IX." Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 174, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005). * * * The Supreme Court's decision in Jackson did not spell out the elements of a Title IX retaliation claim, and no published case in this circuit has decided the question. In unpublished authority, however, we have analogized to Title VII retaliation claims, stating that a Title IX plaintiff must show "that (1) s]he engaged in protected activity, (2) the funding recipient] knew of the protected activity, (3) s]he suffered an adverse school-related action, and (4) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action." Gordon v. Traverse City Area Pub. Schs., 686 F. App'x 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2017). Our sister circuits apply similar tests. See, e.g., Emeldi v. Univ. of Or., 698 F.3d 715, 724 (9th Cir. 2012); Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2011); Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52, 67 (1st Cir. 2002). Bose v. Bea, 947 F. 3d 983 (6th Cir. 2020) |