Recent Supreme Court Decisions Extend Liability for Discrimination Suits
by: Michael Pott and David Burkett
Suits Against Employees of Educational Institutions
On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court created an avenue for employees of educational institutions to be sued as individuals for sex based discrimination. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, No. 07-1125. This decision has significant consequences for educational institutions and their employees.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-based discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funding. Under Title IX, only institutions, not individuals, may be sued. As a result, students often use 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to sue employees of educational institutions as individuals. In the past, courts have dismissed Section 1983 lawsuits against individual employees on the grounds that Title IX provides the sole protection against sex discrimination in educational institutions. See Bruneau ex rel. Schofield v. South Kortright Central School Dist. , 163 F.3d 749 (2nd Cir. 1998); Waid v. Merrill Area Public Schools 91 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court’s decision in Fitzgerald rejects these lower court rulings by holding that Title IX does not preclude sex discrimination suits under Section 1983 against individual school employees.
Another difference between 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Title IX is that Section 1983 allows for punitive damages whereas Title IX does not. Since sex based discrimination claims are now recognized against individual employees under Section 1983, the individual employee may be held liable for punitive damages. As a result, educational institutions can expect Section1983 claims against individuals to be a standard component of sex discrimination lawsuits.
If a Section 1983 claim is asserted against an individual in conjunction with a Title IX claim against an entity, there are still some legal tools that can be used to defend individual employees in Section 1983 suits. For example, qualified immunity may be used to protect an employee from a suit when the allegation does not involve a clearly established right. This is an important tool that can be raised early, and many times, be used to resolve a Section 1983 case before incurring the costs of discovery or facing the risks of trial. Educational institutions are encouraged to seek legal counsel for advice on what legal tools can best address individual employee and punitive damage exposure that their employees may face as result of the Fitzgerald decision.
Retaliation Claims
The United States Supreme Court also recently decided a case dealing with retaliation lawsuits against employers. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government, No. 06-1595. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee who “opposes” race or gender discrimination in the workplace. Typically, retaliation claims are based on an adverse action suffered by the employee after the employee initiates an allegation of unlawful discrimination.
The Supreme Court held that employees are protected from employer retaliation when the employee did not initiate the discrimination allegations but instead relayed information that could be considered opposition to discrimination during an internal investigation. In Crawford, Metro conducted an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by its employee relations director (Hughes). Crawford, a school district employee who was questioned during the investigation, was asked whether she had witnessed “inappropriate behavior” by Hughes. Crawford told the investigator about several instances of Hughes’ inappropriate behavior. Crawford was subsequently fired on allegations of embezzlement. The Court held that Crawford was entitled to Title VII retaliation protection even though she was not the employee who initiated the sexual harassment allegations.
It should be noted that the Court’s holding in Crawford is limited to situations where the employee testifies about unlawful conduct during an internal investigation.
For additional information on these and other employment law updates, employers are encouraged to seek legal counsel.