## Facts

- Arlene Pfeiffer, a high-achieving high school student, was a member of her school’s National Honor Society (NHS) chapter.
- During her junior year, Pfeiffer became pregnant, remained unmarried, and told school officials she intended to carry the pregnancy to term and graduate with her class.
- After Pfeiffer gave birth early in her senior year, the NHS faculty council (five faculty members) reviewed her membership and unanimously voted by secret ballot to dismiss her.
- School officials stated the dismissal was for Pfeiffer’s voluntary premarital sexual activity as inconsistent with NHS “leadership and character” standards, not because of pregnancy.
- Pfeiffer’s parents appealed to the school board at a public meeting; the board upheld the dismissal.
- Pfeiffer sued, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title IX and other claims.
- At trial, Pfeiffer sought to introduce testimony from a male NHS member allegedly engaged in premarital sex who was not dismissed; the district court excluded the testimony.
- The district court found Pfeiffer was dismissed for premarital sexual activity rather than sex or pregnancy, and entered judgment for defendants on the Title IX claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Pfeiffer was dismissed for premarital sexual activity rather than because of sex or pregnancy, defeating Title IX liability on the admitted record.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony from a male NHS member about comparable premarital sexual activity and continued membership as evidence of disparate treatment or discriminatory intent.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that, on the evidence admitted at trial, Pfeiffer’s dismissal was for premarital sexual activity and the finding was not clearly erroneous.
- The Third Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by excluding the male student’s comparator testimony, which was potentially relevant to discriminatory intent and pretext.
- The court reversed the evidentiary ruling and remanded for the limited purpose of admitting the testimony and reconsidering Title IX liability and, if liability were found, compensatory damages.
- The court did not order a particular outcome on remand and stated admission of the testimony would not necessarily change the result.

## Legal Principles

- District court fact findings are reviewed for clear error; appellate courts defer when the record supports the finding and credibility determinations are involved.
- Title IX liability for sex discrimination in school programs may be shown by proof that an adverse action was motivated by sex-based or pregnancy-based discriminatory intent, including discriminatory enforcement of facially neutral standards.
- Comparator evidence concerning similarly situated students can be relevant to discriminatory intent, disparate treatment, and pretext in discrimination cases.
- Excluding materially probative comparator evidence bearing on discriminatory intent can constitute an abuse of discretion and require remand for reconsideration on a complete record.
- If intentional discrimination under Title IX is found, compensatory damages may be available subject to proof.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld the district court’s no-discrimination finding under clear-error review based on the trial record as admitted, but ordered a limited remand because the exclusion of a male comparator’s testimony improperly prevented full consideration of whether the school enforced character standards in a sex-discriminatory manner under Title IX.


Pfeiffer v. Sch. Bd. for Marion Ctr. Area Sch. Dist., 917 F.2d 779 (3d Cir. 1990)