U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Educational Employees Can Sue Under Title IX

Can employees of federally funded educational institutions file lawsuits against their institutions under Title IX? To date, the answer to that question has depended on where the educational employer operates. 

On May 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide that question once and for all. The Court’s decision in Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, No. 25-183, expected next year, will resolve a long-standing U.S. federal circuit court split on a critical question for federally funded education employers: whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, provides employees of those educational institutions a private right of action for sex discrimination in employment.

The appeal accepted by the Supreme Court arises from the Eleventh Circuit’s November 2024 decision finding that Title IX does not provide such a right of action for employees. The Eleventh Circuit ruled instead that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the appropriate vehicle for employee claims that their educational employers committed sex discrimination in the workplace.

The Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for litigation strategy, compliance obligations, and institutional risk across colleges and universities, K-12 schools, and other federally funded education programs.

Background

As previously discussed, the Eleventh Circuit issued a joint decision regarding two cases: Joseph v. Board of Regents and Crowther v. Board of Regents. Each case involved claims of sex discrimination under Title IX asserted by university employees. The Eleventh Circuit held that Title IX does not create an implied private right of action – that is, the right to file a private lawsuit – for employees alleging sex discrimination in employment and that Title VII, instead, provides the exclusive remedy for such employees.¹ It is well-settled that Title IX permits students to bring claims of intentional discrimination, but circuits are split on whether employees of federally funded institutions may bring such claims. Following the Eleventh Circuit decision, the two university employees in the above-referenced cases, both of whom were discharged following workplace conduct investigations at their respective institutions, petitioned the Supreme Court for review. 

The Supreme Court had previously held in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education that employees of educational institutions have an implied private right of action to bring retaliation claims.² In the years following Jackson, the federal circuit courts of appeal have split on whether employees of educational institutions have a right under the statute to sue for sex discrimination in the employment context. With the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, there is an 8-3 circuit split on the issue: the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth and Tenth Circuits currently recognize employee claims under Title IX; the Fifth, Seventh and Eleventh currently do not. 

In its amicus brief in support of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, the United States described the circuit split as “entrenched” and that the conflict could not be resolved without the Supreme Court’s intervention. Further, the United States questioned whether it is appropriate for the Court (rather than Congress) to extend a private right of action under Title IX. The Court has not explicitly stated whether it will consider the latter issue, but if it does, this decision will have even further-reaching consequences.

Practical Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could fundamentally reshape Title IX litigation and compliance risks for educational institutions receiving federal funds. Potential consequences include:

• Administrative Exhaustion: Title VII requires employees to file a charge with the EEOC (or parallel state agency) before bringing suit, whereas Title IX does not. If employees can no longer bring private actions under Title IX, they will not have the option to bypass an administrative process before pursuing a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination.
• Increased Litigation Risks: Employers (particularly those in the Fifth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits) could suddenly encounter overlapping Title VII and Title IX claims in a single lawsuit. Additionally, Title VII limits compensatory damages, while Title IX claims may proceed without statutory caps; if employees have a private right of action under Title IX, they may strategically plead their claims to avoid Title VII caps and procedural constraints.
• Need for Policy Adjustments and Cross-Training: If the petitioners are successful, educational institutions in federal circuits that have not had to recognize Title IX employee claims will need to consider adjustments to their Title IX policies and practices to ensure they expand to accommodate employee matters; further, personnel conducting investigations of alleged employee discrimination and harassment will likely need cross-training on Title IX.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Crowther marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of Title IX jurisprudence regarding employee claims. Educational institutions should monitor this case closely as it proceeds and consider their potentially increased risks and obligations should employees be granted a right to private action under Title IX nationwide.