home

School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:38:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

A basketball coach in Alabama who believes he was fired for complaining that the boys' team was treated more favorably than the girls' team will be able to pursue his discrimination claim in court, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling today.

The 5-4 decision in favor of Alabama high school girls basketball coach Roderick Jackson is a victory for women's advocates who say the legal protection will prompt reports of bias that would otherwise go unsaid or unheeded.

The court held that Title IX -- the federal law prohibiting discrimination in educational institutions -- protects whistleblowers who complain about gender discrimination.

"Without protection from retaliation, individuals who witness discrimination would likely not report it, indifference claims would be short-circuited, and the underlying discrimination would go unremedied," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.

Joining Justice O'Connor in the majority were Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Update: Here is the opinion.

< Saving the Filibuster | Forming a Government in Iraq ... or Not >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    TChris: The petitioner-coach - Roderick - *he* not *she*. He stuck up for his girls and was retaliated against "on the basis of sex," not because he was male but because he complained about sex discrimination against women. That's the importance -- and the beauty -- of the case.

    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#2)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:35:45 PM EST
    You beat me to it, Peter G. Good for him!

    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#3)
    by TChris on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    Peter and txpd, you're absolutely right. My bad; error corrected.

    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:19:31 PM EST
    There's an interesting article in last week's New Yorker on Scalia. Interesting man who's got some personality though it doesn't make up for his views. Anyway, article talked about this case and how Scalia was tough on the attorney who represented the coach. Made it sound like Scalia's view would prevail. Guess not. B

    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    A no-brainer...which of course means that Thomas again voted for the no brain side. Can't eliminate discrimination and the cronyism it covers for, because how else would the unqualified elite keep their chairs? (Yeah, I'm talking about Thomas and Prince George too.) Giving good jobs to house n*rs is also discrimination.

    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:15:50 PM EST
    Am I the only one who perceives the comments of "Paul in LA" as racist? I often disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas, although sometimes (such as on Sixth Amendment rights) he's among the best. But he is not stupid, and there is no objective basis for saying that he is. He's a highly principled conservative, and not "pragmatic," like Breyer or O'Connor. He's not a Scalia or a Souter, as far as I can see (on a scale of brilliance), but neither is Kennedy, Ginsburg or Rehnquist. On the other hand, like all of his colleagues, he is highly intelligent, broadly learned, and (with the help, like all of them, of a superb staff) an exceptionally skilled legal analyst and writer. To excoriate him as unqualified to serve on the Court, after ten years, is just bigoted, IMHO.

    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#7)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:12:41 PM EST
    Yeah, but, Peter. Thomas disagrees with Paul in LA. That means Thomas is any pejorative you can find and is prima facie guilty of any crime you can name. It just follows. It's true because Paul, being a lefty, defines morality. He has all of it and nobody who disagrees with him has a scrap. There's none left over.

    Re: School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 07:42:26 AM EST
    No, Richard, you're wrong, too. I put myself on the political left, and I believe strongly that we, on our side, have a more correct sense of morality than the Right. Attacking everyone who disagrees with you seems, unfortunately, to be more a "conservative" trait these days than a liberal one, but when I see it on my side, I will call someone on it. That's because honesty and civility are also moral values, at least for me. Dark Avenger: I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call racist a commentary which refers to the African-American that he's criticizing as a "house n*r," as Paul did. No stretch at all. President Bush (Sr.) lied when he said that Thomas was "most qualified" person available for the seat, but so what? He was qualified (which for the Supreme Court is saying a lot). And his performance in the decade since proves that, even though on the merits he's wrong, wrong, wrong so often.

    School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX | 8 comments (8 topical)