## Facts

- Jane Doe, a physician, entered Mercy Catholic Medical Center’s ACGME-accredited diagnostic radiology residency as a second-year resident.
- Mercy is a private teaching hospital that operates the residency program and receives federal financial assistance.
- Doe alleged the program director subjected her to escalating sexual harassment, including repeated romantic and sexual advances and unwanted touching.
- Doe alleged that after she resisted and complained, Mercy retaliated through adverse actions, including psychiatric referrals, a corrective plan, and termination from the residency.
- Doe alleged that her termination prevented her from obtaining another residency position and effectively blocked full medical licensure.

## Issues

1. Whether the residency program is an “education program or activity” receiving federal financial assistance within Title IX’s scope.
2. Whether an employee-resident may seek private damages under Title IX for sex discrimination and retaliation without complying with Title VII’s EEOC administrative process.
3. Whether Doe’s Title IX theories (hostile environment, quid pro quo harassment, retaliation) were timely under the applicable statute of limitations.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The court held that Mercy’s ACGME-accredited residency program qualified as an “education program or activity” under Title IX.
- The court held that Title IX permits a private damages action for quid pro quo harassment and retaliation by an employee-resident, and Title VII’s exhaustion requirements did not bar the Title IX claims.
- Applying Pennsylvania’s two-year personal-injury limitations period, the court held:
  - the hostile-environment claim was time-barred and properly dismissed; and
  - the quid pro quo and retaliation claims were timely and reinstated.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the timely Title IX claims.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX applies to federally funded “education program[s] or activit[ies]” and may cover graduate medical residency programs when they function as structured, accredited educational training.
- Title IX’s implied private right of action allows damages for intentional sex discrimination and retaliation by a covered recipient of federal funds.
- Title VII does not categorically displace Title IX remedies for sex discrimination in covered educational programs; Title IX contains no EEOC-style administrative exhaustion requirement.
- For limitations purposes, hostile-environment allegations may be time-barred if the last actionable incident falls outside the limitations period, while discrete adverse actions (including termination) accrue separately and are timely if filed within the limitations period.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that a federally funded, accredited medical residency can be treated as an educational program under Title IX and that an employee-resident may pursue Title IX damages for quid pro quo harassment and retaliation without Title VII exhaustion, while affirming dismissal of an untimely hostile-environment claim.


Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545 (3d Cir. 2017)