Lexplug logoLexplug

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee

Supreme Court of the United States
172 L. Ed. 2d 582, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 592, 555 U.S. 246 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not provide the exclusive remedy for gender discrimination in schools, and therefore does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing a separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause.


Facts:

  • During the 2000-2001 school year, the kindergarten daughter of Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald attended a school in the Barnstable, Massachusetts school system.
  • The daughter reported to her parents that a third-grade boy on her school bus repeatedly bullied her into lifting her skirt.
  • The Fitzgeralds immediately reported the conduct to the school principal, Frederick Scully.
  • The daughter later disclosed that the boy had also coerced her into pulling down her underpants and spreading her legs, which her parents also reported to Scully.
  • School officials investigated but concluded there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations or warrant discipline against the boy.
  • The school proposed remedial measures, such as moving the Fitzgeralds' daughter to another bus or creating empty buffer seats.
  • The Fitzgeralds rejected these proposals, suggesting instead that the boy be moved or a monitor be placed on the bus; the school superintendent, Russell Dever, did not act on these proposals.
  • The Fitzgeralds began driving their daughter to school to avoid the bus, but she continued to report other unsettling incidents at school.

Procedural Posture:

  • Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald sued the Barnstable School Committee and Superintendent Dever in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
  • The complaint alleged violations of Title IX, § 1983 (based on Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause), and state law.
  • The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the § 1983 and state-law claims.
  • Subsequently, the District Court granted summary judgment for the school committee on the remaining Title IX claim.
  • The Fitzgeralds (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that Title IX's 'sufficiently comprehensive' remedial scheme precluded the Fitzgeralds' § 1983 claims.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts on this issue.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 preclude a plaintiff from bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Alito

No. Title IX does not preclude a concurrent claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The court's primary consideration is congressional intent. Preclusion of a § 1983 remedy is only found where Congress intended a statute’s remedial scheme to be exclusive. Unlike statutes in prior cases where preclusion was found (Sea Clammers, Smith, Rancho Palos Verdes), Title IX's remedial scheme is not 'unusually elaborate' or 'comprehensive.' Title IX has no administrative exhaustion requirement or detailed procedural provisions that a § 1983 suit would circumvent. Furthermore, Title IX's implied private right of action is not the kind of express, restrictive remedy that suggests congressional intent to displace § 1983. The substantive rights and protections under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause also diverge significantly; for instance, Title IX applies to private institutions receiving federal funds but not to individual state actors, whereas § 1983 applies to individual state actors but not private entities. The standards for liability also differ, with Title IX using a 'deliberate indifference' standard for institutional liability and § 1983 requiring a 'municipal custom, policy, or practice.' Finally, historical context shows Congress modeled Title IX on Title VI, which was understood to permit parallel § 1983 claims.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that § 1983 remains a robust and independent remedy for constitutional violations, even when a federal statute also addresses the underlying conduct. It establishes that implied statutory rights of action, like Title IX's, are insufficient to demonstrate the clear congressional intent required to displace a § 1983 constitutional claim. By preserving access to § 1983, the Court ensures that plaintiffs can sue individual state actors (who are not liable under Title IX) and seek remedies for constitutional violations that may have different proof standards than the corresponding statute. This prevents a statutory scheme from inadvertently weakening the enforcement of constitutional rights.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee