The U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming term will include a closely watched employment law case that could significantly affect colleges, universities, and other federally funded educational institutions. In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Court will resolve a longstanding disagreement among the federal circuits as to whether employees of federally funded educational institutions may bring private employment discrimination suits under Title IX, or whether Title VII provides the exclusive federal remedy for such claims.
Background
The Court’s review arises from two consolidated cases involving employees of public universities in Georgia. One case was brought by Thomas Crowther, an art professor at Augusta University, and the other by MaChelle Joseph, the former head women’s basketball coach at Georgia Tech. Both alleged that they experienced sex-based discrimination in connection with their employment at these institutions which receive federal funding.
According to the petitions, Joseph repeatedly raised concerns that Georgia Tech provided fewer resources and less support to its women’s basketball program than to comparable men’s programs. She claims that after filing a formal complaint, she was placed on administrative leave and ultimately terminated. Crowther, meanwhile, contends that a Title IX investigation into allegations of sexual harassment was conducted in a manner that discriminated against him based on his sex, ultimately resulting in disciplinary action and the nonrenewal of his contract.
Both employees sought relief under Title IX, which provides that “no person shall, on the basis of sex, be subjected to discrimination under an education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” The claims raised a question that has divided federal courts for decades: may employees of federally funded educational institutions bring private employment-discrimination suits under Title IX, or must they pursue such claims under Title VII?
Key Differences Between Title VII and Title IX in Context of Discrimination Lawsuits
For most employers, sex discrimination claims are governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII expressly prohibits employers from discriminating “on the basis of sex” and establishes a comprehensive enforcement scheme that generally requires an employee to exhaust administrative remedies by way of filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), before filing suit in federal court. Title IX, enacted eight years later as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits sex discrimination by educational programs and activities receiving federal funding.
Unlike Title VII, however, Title IX does not contain an express private right of action. The Supreme Court has recognized an implied right of action under Title IX in certain circumstances, and has previously recognized that the statute’s prohibition on sex discrimination reaches employment practices at federally funded educational institutions. What remains unresolved, however, is whether employees may bring private lawsuits under Title IX for employment discrimination, or whether Title VII provides the exclusive remedy. Federal appellate courts have answered that question differently. Some circuits have permitted employment discrimination claims under Title IX, while others have concluded that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for employees alleging workplace sex discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Crowther to resolve this split and establish a binding and uniform rule.
Why the Decision Matters for Employers in the Education Sector
At first glance, the dispute may appear to be largely technical, but in practice, the answer could have significant consequences for both employers and employees. One of the most notable differences between Title VII and Title IX is the mandatory administrative process required before a lawsuit may be filed under Title VII. Title IX does not mandate the same prerequisite for plaintiffs. As a result, recognition of a Title IX employment cause of action could provide employees with an alternative avenue for pursuing allegations of sex discrimination without the need to participate in the administrative process.
Other key differences between Title VII and Title IX, such as differences in available remedies, mean that the availability of a Title IX employment claim may present strategic advantages. The Supreme Court’s decision therefore has the potential to affect not only which claims may be asserted, but also how these sex discrimination disputes are investigated, litigated, and resolved. Conversely, a ruling that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for sex-based discrimination claims against recipients of federal funding would preserve the existing administrative framework and provide greater certainty regarding statutory compliance and remedies in the realm of workplace sex discrimination claims.
Educational institutions receiving federal funding should closely monitor the Court’s decision. If the Supreme Court concludes that Title IX provides employees with a private right of action for employment discrimination, colleges and universities may see employees assert Title IX claims in addition to, or instead of, Title VII claims. Such a ruling could expand the scope of employment litigation and create new strategic considerations for employers facing discrimination allegations.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument in Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia on November 30, 2026. Regardless of the outcome, the decision is likely to become one of the most significant employment law rulings of the term for schools, colleges, universities, and other federally funded educational entities. Employers in the education sector should monitor the case closely. By clarifying whether Title IX offers an alternative avenue for employment discrimination claims, the Supreme Court’s decision may significantly impact the procedural requirements, litigation strategy, and potential exposure associated with sex discrimination claims brought against federally funded educational institutions.
Article by Emily Mahler and Katherine Kosco, Law Clerk
