A former Georgia Tech’s women’s basketball coach and former Augusta University art professor each argued they were retaliated and discriminated against based on their sex.
ATLANTA (CN) — After hearing arguments Thursday from two former university employees who claim they were wrongfully fired, a federal appeals court is left to rule on a complex civil rights issue that has split the circuit courts.
Both of the former employees filed suits against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia claiming they were fired out of retaliation and discrimination based on their sex.
In each case, the 11th Circuit must decide whether the individuals’ claims can be pursued under both Title VII and Title IX, two separate statutes of the Civil Rights Act.
Title VII is a comprehensive, specific statute concerning employment discrimination that includes an express private right of action for employees to file suit, whereas Title IX is a general prohibition on sex discrimination in federally funded programs.
First before the panel were claims from MaChelle Joseph, who worked as the head coach of the women’s basketball team at the Georgia Institute of Technology from 2003 to 2019 and says the university allocated more resources and funding to the men’s basketball team than the women’s.
However, the three-judge circuit panel appeared unpersuaded that the university’s actions were a result of Joseph being a woman. “The district court made the determination that but for your client’s sex, there still would have been the diminished resources given to the women’s basketball team,” U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck said.
“If the coach of the women’s team was a man, everyone seems to agree they still would have gotten far less resources than the men’s team. How can we say that the diminishing of resources was based on her sex?” the Donald Trump appointee added.
U.S. Chief Circuit Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, said a more reasonable argument in this case would be that the university’s disparate allocation of resources is based on the sex of the team’s players, not their coach.
Joseph further argues that she was retaliated against for complaining about the disparate resources by the university, which fired her over accusations that players were complaining about her coaching.
Her attorney, Carolyn Wheeler, told the court that the university’s investigation against Joseph was vague and failed to identify specific allegations of her demeaning players with profanity. U.S. Circuit Court Judge Edward Carnes seemed unconvinced.
“How could you not believe that based on the report?” the George H. W. Bush appointee asked. “She admitted coaches use that kind of language.”
Attorney Courtney Poole, who represents the Georgia University Board of Regents, said the report was believable and not retaliatory because two players ended up quitting mid-season.
At issue for the circuit panel is the 2005 case Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that retaliating against someone for complaining about sex discrimination is a form of intentional sex discrimination that violates Title IX.
In the second case to come before the panel Thursday, the Board of Regents argued that although the justices did not expressly examine whether Title VII displaces Title IX, it did recognize that the two statutes are “vastly different.”
They argued it was the only instance the justices extended the statute to employees rather than students, because there was no other available remedy. That precedent weighs in favor of preclusion in cases, like this one, where Title VII provides relief for the claims in question, attorney Stephen Petrany told the court.
Thomas Crowther, a former art professor at Augusta University, who asserts he was wrongfully fired based on “anti-male bias,” says his claims can be pursued separately under both statutes.
In his suit, Crowther accuses the university of conducting a one-sided investigation against him based on false accusations from students that he took photographs of a nude model in his class without her permission and touched female students in class.
In regards to Jackson, the circuit judges noted that courts must rule based on the facts of the specific case before them and expressed concern that applying that judgment here would be an over extension.
“We’re in ‘don’t do it’ land, where there is a right of action under another statute,” Pryor said.
The judges did not signal when they intend to issue a ruling.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Post a Comment