## Facts

- Roderick Jackson was a public school teacher and girls’ basketball coach at Ensley High School in Birmingham, Alabama.
- Jackson discovered the girls’ basketball team received inferior funding and access to equipment and facilities compared to the boys’ team.
- He complained to supervisors about the unequal treatment but his complaints were unsuccessful.
- After complaining, Jackson received negative work evaluations and was removed as girls’ basketball coach, though he remained employed as a teacher.
- Jackson alleged the removal was retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination in violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.

## Issues

1. Whether Title IX’s implied private right of action includes a claim for retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination.
2. Whether a person who was not the direct target of the underlying sex discrimination may sue under Title IX when he is retaliated against for reporting it.
3. Whether federal funding recipients had sufficient notice, under Spending Clause principles, that retaliation could create Title IX liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held, 5–4, that Title IX’s implied private right of action encompasses claims of retaliation for complaints about sex discrimination.
- The Court concluded retaliation is intentional differential treatment and constitutes discrimination “on the basis of sex” when it is a response to an allegation of sex discrimination.
- The Court rejected the argument that Jackson lacked statutory protection because the girls were the initial targets; retaliatory conduct made Jackson a victim of discrimination within Title IX’s “no person” language.
- The Court rejected the funding-recipient notice objection, finding sufficient notice that retaliation related to sex-discrimination complaints could trigger liability.

## Legal Principles

- Retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination in a federally funded education program is actionable under Title IX as intentional discrimination on the basis of sex.
- Title IX’s implied private right of action extends to intentional discriminatory acts not limited to the immediate victims of the underlying unequal treatment.
- A plaintiff may fall within Title IX’s protected class when retaliatory action subjects the plaintiff to discrimination because of the plaintiff’s complaint alleging sex discrimination.
- Spending Clause notice is satisfied where the statute’s broad prohibition on sex discrimination, together with established interpretations and agency regulations addressing retaliation, provides recipients fair warning of potential liability.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized a Title IX retaliation claim, holding that individuals who suffer adverse action for reporting sex discrimination may sue under Title IX even when the underlying discrimination was directed at others, thereby protecting reporting and enforcement mechanisms in federally funded schools.


Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005)