On May 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case from the Eleventh Circuit to clarify the scope of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Specifically, the Court may opine on whether Title IX allows employees of federally funded educational institutions to bring sex discrimination or retaliation claims against their employers.
Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University Sys. of Georgia originated as two separate cases before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated them. In one case, Thomas Crowther, a former Augusta University art professor, filed a Title IX claim alleging employment discrimination after the university suspended him and declined to renew his contract based on accusations that he sexually harassed students. The district court denied the Board’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Board sought an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.
MaChelle Joseph, a former women’s basketball coach at Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) brought the second case. Georgia Tech terminated Joseph’s employment after an internal investigation revealed that she mistreated players. Joseph filed a lawsuit alleging sex-based discrimination under Title IX, among other statutes. The district court dismissed Joseph’s Title IX claims on the basis that Title VII claims precluded them, and Joseph appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit consolidated the two actions, and in a November 2024 decision authored by Chief Judge William Pryor, held that the plain language of Title IX does not evidence congressional intent to create a private right of action for employees of educational institutions. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Joseph’s Title IX claim and reversed the order permitting Crowther’s Title IX claim to proceed.
In April 2025, the Eleventh Circuit declined a request to rehear the consolidated cases en banc. On behalf of the dissent, Judge Robin Rosenbaum wrote that the Eleventh Circuit ignored clear precedent from the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Education. Judge Rosenbaum asserted that the Jackson opinion supports appellants’ positions because the Court allowed the employee plaintiff in that case to bring a Title IX claim for retaliation.
Chief Judge Pryor, writing for the majority, responded to the dissent, asserting that Jackson was distinguishable from the current cases in notable ways. He reasoned that while Jackson permitted a Title IX retaliation claim, it arose from an employee’s opposition to conduct barred by Title IX itself — specifically, sex discrimination against students. He explained that Title IX created a cause of action for students who otherwise lack a remedy for sex discrimination, and Jackson extended that protection to institutional employees who face retaliation for opposing discrimination against students. The majority further stated that Title VII provides employees of educational institutions with a cause of action for employment-based discrimination and retaliation claims.
After the Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing, Crowther and Joseph sought review from the Supreme Court. Their petition highlighted a broad circuit split: the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have held that Title IX does not create a cause of action for employment discrimination claims, while eight other circuits have held that it does. The Supreme Court’s decision will provide clarity on the avenues of redress available for employees of federally funded educational institutions who allege that they have been subjected to sex discrimination or retaliated against.
