Blogs

Title IX at the crossroads: Supreme Court to decide whether employees can sue under Title IX

6/26/26

By: Sunshine Fellows

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, a closely watched case that could significantly affect employment litigation involving educational institutions. The case presents a fundamental question: may employees of federally funded educational institutions pursue sex-discrimination claims directly under Title IX, or is Title VII the exclusive federal remedy for employment discrimination claims? By agreeing to resolve a longstanding split among the federal courts of appeals, the Court has positioned itself to clarify the scope of Title IX and potentially reshape the litigation landscape for colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, and other recipients of federal education funding.

A circuit split years in the making

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. Although Title VII has long served as the primary federal statute governing employment discrimination, several federal appellate courts have held that employees of educational institutions may also bring employment-related discrimination claims under Title IX. Other courts have concluded that Congress intended Title VII’s comprehensive administrative and enforcement framework to serve as the exclusive avenue for such claims. The Supreme Court’s decision to review Crowther reflects the growing importance of resolving this disagreement and providing a uniform national rule.

What is at stake in Crowther?

The petition arises from employment discrimination allegations against a public university system and presents broader questions about the interaction between Title VII and Title IX. If the Court concludes that Title IX provides an independent cause of action for employees, plaintiffs may attempt to use Title IX to pursue claims that would otherwise be subject to Title VII’s procedural requirements, including administrative exhaustion through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Such a ruling could expand litigation options for employees and increase exposure for educational employers. Conversely, if the Court determines that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy, educational institutions may gain greater certainty regarding the procedures and standards governing employment discrimination claims.

Potential implications for educational employers

Regardless of the outcome, the Court’s decision is likely to have substantial consequences for educational institutions nationwide. A ruling recognizing employment claims under Title IX could increase the number of lawsuits filed against schools, colleges, and universities while creating additional considerations for internal investigations and compliance programs. Institutions may face parallel allegations under both Title VII and Title IX, requiring greater coordination among human resources professionals, legal counsel, and Title IX personnel. The decision could also influence litigation strategy, available defenses, and the timing of claims.

Employer takeaways

While the Supreme Court considers the case, educational employers should review existing anti-discrimination policies, reporting mechanisms, and investigation procedures to ensure consistency across Title VII and Title IX compliance efforts. Employers should also evaluate whether responsibilities are clearly allocated among HR, legal, and Title IX offices and confirm that complaints involving employees are being handled in a coordinated manner. Even before a decision is issued, Crowther serves as a reminder that courts continue to scrutinize how educational institutions address workplace discrimination allegations. Organizations that proactively assess their policies and practices will be better positioned to respond regardless of how the Supreme Court ultimately resolves this important question.

For more information on this topic contact Sunshine Fellows at sunshine.fellows@fmglaw.com.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.