U.S. Department
of Justice
Title IX Anniversary
June 23, 2012 marks the 40th Anniversary of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a groundbreaking federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This webpage highlights key achievements in the Justice Department's enforcement of this landmark legislation and provides links to further information regarding the Department's enforcement efforts.
Equal Access to Education: Forty Years of Title IX
PDFThis report explains how Title IX has greatly expanded educational opportunities for women and protected both women and men from discrimination on the basis of sex in the educational context. This report provides examples of how the Justice Department's enforcement of Title IX and other federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex has been instrumental in securing equal educational opportunities.
The Justice Department's Role in Title IX Enforcement
The Justice Department enforces Title IX by coordinating its enforcement across all federal agencies, conducting its own and joint investigations with the United States Department of Education, participating in lawsuits, filing amicus briefs to assist courts with interpreting Title IX, and negotiating settlement agreements requiring schools to remedy Title IX violations. The Department also has helped develop Title IX regulations, advised government agencies on Title IX compliance reviews, and provided guidance to the public on the requirements of Title IX. Additionally, the Department actively enforces other laws prohibiting sex discrimination, including Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public schools and institutions of higher learning, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discriminatory employment practices, including those by educational institutions. This critical work is done primarily by the Department's Civil Rights Division through its Educational Opportunities, Appellate, Federal Coordination and Compliance, and Employment Litigation Sections. In cases involving sex discrimination before the United States Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's Office of the Department represents the United States' interests.
Highlights of the Justice Department's Efforts to Combat Discrimination on the Basis of Sex
The Department has participated in several cases to ensure that courts interpret Title IX in a way that provides access to justice for individual victims of discrimination and holds schools accountable for discrimination based on sex. Examples of this work include:
- Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (S. Ct.) (2005)
Whether Title IX prohibits retaliation against those who complain about discrimination - Atkinson v. Lafayette College (3d Cir.) (2003)
Whether retaliatory dismissal of female faculty member violates Title IX - Litman v. George Mason University (4th Cir.) (2001)
Whether there is a private right of action to enforce Title IX's anti-retaliation regulation - Pederson v. Louisiana State University (5th Cir.) (2000)
Whether Title IX is constitutional under the Spending Clause - Beasley v. Alabama State University (11th Cir.) (1998)
Whether states can claim Eleventh Amendment immunity from Title IX claims - Cannon v. University of Chicago (S. Ct.) (1979)
Whether Title IX allows individuals to sue in court if they are victims of discrimination - University of Montana Title IX Compliance Review and Title IV Investigation (2012)
Investigation of University's handling of sexual assault and harassment claims - Doe v. Merrill Community School District (6th Cir.) (2010)
Whether middle school acted with "deliberate indifference" to rape of student - Lopez and United States v. Metropolitan Nashville School District (M.D. Tenn) (2010)
Consent decree reached in case alleging sexual assaults on special education bus - A.B. v. Rhinebeck Central School District & Thomas Mawhinney (S.D. N.Y.) (2006)
Consent decree achieved in case alleging sexual harassment of students by principal - Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (S. Ct.) (1999)
Whether Title IX permits monetary relief for student-on-student sexual harassment - Gebser v. Lago Vista School District (S. Ct.) (1998)
Whether Title IX permits monetary relief for teacher-on-student sexual harassment - Doe and United States v. Anoka-Hennepin School District (D. Minn.) (2012)
Consent decree in case involving student harassment based on gender stereotypes - Tehachapi Unified School District (E.D. Cal.) (2011)
Settlement to address harassment of student based on gender nonconformity - Pratt v. Indian River Central School District (N.D. N.Y.) (2010)
Whether Title IX covers harassment based on nonconformance to gender stereotypes - J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District (N.D. N.Y.) (2010)
Settlement reached in case alleging harassment based on gender stereotypes - Lovins and United States v. Pleasant Hill Public School District (W.D. Mo.) (2000)
Consent decree providing relief for student in same-sex peer harassment case - Putman v. Board of Education of Somerset Independent Schools (E.D. Ky.) (2000)
Whether student's Title IX claim should proceed given sexual nature and severity of harassment - Biediger v. Quinnipiac University (2nd Cir.) (2011)
Whether University's competitive cheerleading team constitutes a "sport" under Title IX and whether disparity between male and female athletic opportunities violates Title IX - Biediger, et al. v. Quinnipiac University (D. Conn.) (2010)
What constitutes a "sport" under Title IX and a "genuine" athletic opportunity - Cook v. Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) (M.D. Fla.) (2009)
Whether disproportionate reductions in girls' sports competitions violate Title IX - Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Association (6th Cir.) (2003)
Whether scheduling female athletes to play in disadvantageous seasons violates Title IX - Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Association (W.D. Mich.) (2001)
Relief achieved to address discriminatory playing seasons and facilities for female athletes - Pedersen and United States v. South Dakota High School Activities Association (M.D. S.D.) (2002)
Whether requiring girls to play sports in disadvantageous seasons violates Title IX - Cohen v. Brown University (1st Cir.) (1995)
Whether court properly applied three-part test in case involving cuts to women's teams - Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board (5th Cir.) (2010)
Whether challenged single-sex middle school classrooms comply with federal law - United States and Mellette v. Jones (D. S.C.) (1997)
Consent order achieved in case challenging males-only admissions policy of The Citadel - United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia (W.D. Va.) (1990)
Suit filed to challenge males-only admissions policy of Virginia Military Institute (VMI) - United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia (S. Ct.) (1994)
Whether VMI's males-only admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause - United States v. Tucson Unified School District (2011)
- United States v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2009)
- United States v. Luna Community College (2009)
- United States v. University of North Carolina (2007)
- U.S. v. Escambia (2006)
- U.S. v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (2005)
- U.S. v. University of New Mexico (2004)
- U.S. v. Regents of the University of California (2003)
- U.S. v. Zuni Public School District (2002)
- 2000 Title IX Regulations
- Title IX Legal Manual
- Questions and Answers Regarding Title IX Procedural Requirements
- Title IX STEM
Inter-agency initiative to promote gender equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics - Executive Order 13160
Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex and other characteristics in federally conducted education and training programs
Combating discrimination based on sex under Title IX and other federal statutes is a top priority of the Civil Rights Division. (EDU Fact Sheet) For more information about the Division, please visit our website at http://www.justice.gov/crt/index.php.
>