Published on: June 8, 2026
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Kayleigh Baker, J.D.
Can an employee sue a school, district, college, or university for sex discrimination? Yes, under Title VII. But under Title IX? That question is now before the Supreme Court.
Last month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to hear) for the case of Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, to decide whether employees of federally funded educational institutions have a private right of action (the ability to file a lawsuit) under Title IX for employment sex discrimination claims.
Depending on the ruling, this case could significantly reshape the relationship between Title VII and Title IX, determining if employees can continue to rely on Title IX for sex discrimination claims in federal court.
TNG Partner Joseph Vincent, M.L.S. and I break down this case in detail on ATIXA’s official podcast.
The Case Before the Supreme Court
The case involves Thomas Crowther, a former professor at Augusta University, and MaChelle Joseph, the former women’s basketball coach at Georgia Tech. Both individuals alleged sex discrimination in employment and attempted to pursue claims under Title IX rather than solely under Title VII.
The Supreme Court’s review will likely address the following questions:
- Will the Court reaffirm decades of precedent recognizing an implied student private right of action under Title IX and extend that reasoning to employee sex discrimination claims?
- Or, will the Court apply its more recent restrictive approach to implied rights of action, and conclude that Congress authorized employee sex discrimination claims exclusively through Title VII?
A Split Among Federal Courts
Courts have reached different conclusions about how these laws interact. Most federal circuits, with the exceptions of the Fifth, Seventh, and now Eleventh, have, to some degree, allowed employees to pursue Title IX claims for sex discrimination or retaliation.
These courts have relied, in part, on existing Supreme Court precedents like North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, which recognized that Title IX’s protections extend to employees, and Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, which recognized a private right of action for retaliation under Title IX, for an employee. In these circuits, employees can typically choose to file suit under Title IX and/or Title VII if they experience employment sex discrimination.
Conversely, the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have concluded that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims, meaning that employees cannot bypass Title VII’s administrative pre-suit requirements by suing under Title IX instead of, or in addition to, Title VII. As a result, there is a divide when faced with the question, “Does Title VII preempt the right to sue under Title IX when an employee faces sex discrimination?” Arguably, Title VII offers a broader damages scheme than Title IX, so it’s unclear what benefits employees find by filing under Title IX, in real-world terms.
In the Crowther case, the Eleventh Circuit took a different approach. Before considering whether Title VII preempts Title IX, the Court held that Title IX itself does not confer on employees an implied private right of action for sex discrimination claims. After the Eleventh Circuit declined to review en banc, the employees applied for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. The Court has agreed to do so.
Why the Decision Matters
In many states, employees of federally funded educational institutions may currently pursue legal claims under Title VII, Title IX, or both. But Title VII requires employees to exhaust administrative remedies through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing suit, imposes certain limitations on damages, and includes specific filing deadlines and procedural hurdles.
Conversely, litigation based on Title IX does not require the same hoops to jump through. Closing the Title IX door (at least on monetary damages claims) could be seen as making it more difficult to seek relief in courts when an employee experiences sex discrimination.
What the Decision Means for Title IX Offices
The Supreme Court is expected to hear this case during the October 2026 Term, with oral argument expected in late 2026 or early 2027. A decision is anticipated by summer 2027. The Supreme Court’s decision will be particularly significant in situations where the line between employee and student is blurred.
While this case could substantially affect Title IX litigation, it should not change how Title IX Offices manage complaints or concerns, as Title IX unquestionably prohibits sex discrimination against employees at federally funded educational institutions. There is always an outside chance this Court could overturn precedents going back more than 40 years, like North Haven v. Bell, or Cannon itself, but that’s not on the radar screen, yet. A ruling upholding Crowther but not going further would not likely impact federal agency enforcement authority under Title IX, which is not dependent on whether an employee can personally file a Title IX lawsuit in federal court.
If the Court reverses (and sides with the employees, rather than the institutions, in this case), institutions could see an increase in Title IX employment litigation and in parallel claims brought under both Title VII and Title IX, particularly in the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, where such suits have been barred. The Supreme Court’s decision may also provide broader guidance on the relationship between Title VII and Title IX in employment discrimination cases, beyond the specific question of whether employees have a private right of action under Title IX.
Although this case centers on litigation rights, it also serves as a reminder that college and school Title IX offices regularly receive complaints involving faculty or staff who have been harassed or discriminated against on the basis of sex. Even if Title VII remains the exclusive judicial remedy, institutions should avoid treating employee complaints as outside the scope of Title IX.
The 2020 Title IX Regulations still have in place explicit procedural protections and rights for employees, and institutions remain responsible for addressing sex discrimination affecting employees within their educational programs or activities. This will remain true even as the case draws greater public attention and prompts administrators and employees to ask questions about which laws apply.
Takeaways
- Employees are still protected by Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination (through administrative agency enforcement), regardless of whether the Supreme Court recognizes a private right of action.
- A decision affirming the Eleventh Circuit would significantly limit employees’ ability to pursue sex discrimination claims if they have not satisfied Title VII’s procedural requirements.
- A reversal could expand litigation exposure for federally funded educational institutions by reaffirming, or recognizing, a direct Title IX cause of action for employees.
ATIXA members receive the latest case law updates and analyses through the member listserv. Not a member? Join today.