Vorchheimer ex rel Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia
532 F.2d 880 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal anti-discrimination statutes do not prohibit a public school system from maintaining single-sex academic high schools, provided that enrollment is voluntary and the educational opportunities offered to both sexes are essentially equal in quality, academic standing, and prestige.
Facts:
- Susan Vorchheimer, a teen-age girl, graduated with honors from a junior high school in Philadelphia.
- Vorchheimer applied to Central High School, a public academic school in Philadelphia, which restricted admission to male students.
- Central High School refused Vorchheimer admission solely because she is female.
- The Philadelphia School District operates two city-wide academic high schools with high admission standards: Central High School, restricted to males, and Girls High School, restricted to females.
- Both Central and Girls High are comparable in quality, academic standing, and prestige, with similar courses and facilities (except for superior science facilities at Central).
- Enrollment at either academic school is voluntary, and only 7% of students in the city qualify for admission based on stringent scholastic requirements.
- Vorchheimer met the scholastic requirements for admission to both Central High School and Girls High School.
- Vorchheimer preferred Central High School due to its atmosphere and academic excellence, and expressed dissatisfaction with the impression Girls High gave her.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Vorchheimer, a teen-age girl, filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Vorchheimer sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from alleged unconstitutional discrimination by the Philadelphia School District.
- After a trial, the district court granted an injunction, ordering Vorchheimer and other qualified female students to be admitted to Central High School.
- The district court found that the gender-based classification lacked a 'fair and substantial relationship to the School Board’s legitimate interest' and enjoined the practice.
- The School District of Philadelphia appealed the district court’s judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 the maintenance of separate but academically equal single-sex public high schools, where enrollment is voluntary, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or federal anti-discrimination statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph F. Weis, Jr.
No, the Constitution and laws of the United States do not require every public school to be coeducational, nor do they forbid a public school board from maintaining a limited number of single-sex high schools where enrollment is voluntary and educational opportunities are essentially equal. The court found that federal statutory law, specifically Title IX and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), did not prohibit single-sex secondary schools. Title IX explicitly excludes secondary school admission policies, and the EEOA, despite some ambiguous language, did not clearly express a congressional intent to abolish single-sex schools, particularly because legislative history indicated a desire to defer action on the issue for more data. Addressing the constitutional claim, the court distinguished sex classifications from racial classifications, noting that race is a suspect classification while gender is not. Applying the 'fair and substantial relationship' test (or even a rational relationship test, which the policy would also pass), the court reasoned that the prior Supreme Court cases striking down gender classifications involved an actual deprivation or loss of a benefit to one sex not available elsewhere, which was not the case here where comparable opportunities were provided to both sexes. The policy of maintaining single-sex schools serves a legitimate educational objective by offering a 'time honored educational alternative' that some experts believe is effective for adolescent learning. The precedent of Williams v. McNair, which upheld single-sex state colleges, further supported the permissibility of such policies.
Dissenting - Gibbons
Yes, the maintenance of separate but academically equal single-sex public high schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Judge Gibbons argued that the majority's reasoning implicitly resurrects the 'separate but equal' doctrine, which was unequivocally rejected for public education in Brown v. Board of Education, making its application to sex discrimination equally inappropriate. He emphasized that Congress, acting under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, explicitly found in EEOA § 203(a)(1) that 'the maintenance of dual school systems in which students are assigned to schools solely on the basis of . sex . . . denies those students the equal protection of the laws.' Furthermore, EEOA § 204(c) defined assigning students in a way that increases sex segregation as an unlawful practice. Judge Gibbons contended that, under Katzenbach v. Morgan, courts should defer to Congress's power to define violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, especially when Congress expands, rather than contracts, rights. He also disagreed with the majority's assessment of the 'fair and substantial relationship' test, asserting that the School Board failed to demonstrate that its single-sex policy genuinely advanced its educational objectives, particularly since it offered no coeducational academic high school option while maintaining mostly co-ed comprehensive schools.
Analysis:
This case is significant for several reasons. First, it cemented the application of an intermediate level of scrutiny (the 'fair and substantial relationship' test) to gender classifications in education, but found this standard satisfied where genuinely separate but equal educational opportunities existed. Second, it explicitly distinguished racial segregation, deemed 'inherently unequal' in Brown v. Board of Education, from sex-based distinctions under the Equal Protection Clause, thereby allowing for the continuation of single-sex public schools under certain conditions. Third, the court demonstrated judicial reluctance to interpret federal statutes as broadly mandating coeducation, deferring to perceived legislative ambiguity or silence. The decision effectively affirmed that public single-sex schools could persist, provided they ensured comparable educational quality and voluntary enrollment, significantly impacting school district policies regarding gender segregation.
