Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs and activities. Title IX protections extend to both students and employees, and include protections against discrimination, sexual harassment, and assault. If you feel that you are being discriminated against based on sex by an educational institution that receives Federal funds, there are laws to protect you. This page will provide you with a brief overview of Title IX protections. To learn more, visit our Title IX Legal Topics Page.
Title IX Protections: Sexual Harassment And Assault
Title IX prohibits sexual harassment of students by students and students by teachers. Sexual harassment can take various forms, including sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual abuse and sexual coercion. If you have been harassed or have been a victim of sexual assault on a college campus, whether it was by a fellow student or by a teacher, your educational institution may be liable. KMB has achieved significant results for victims of sexual harassment at educational institutions.
Title IX Protections: Employment Discrimination
Many jurisdictions recognize a cause of action for employment discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX. Although Title VII offers similar protections, there may be some benefits to pursuing an employment discrimination claim under Title IX, such as longer statutes of limitation and fewer caps on damages. Even if your jurisdiction does not does not recognize a separate cause of action under Title IX, you may still have a cause of action under Title VII.
Title IX Protections: Retaliation
Title IX also prohibits schools from retaliating against students and teachers for opposing Title IX discrimination, including reporting sexual harassment or assault to a campus authority. To make out a prima facie case of Title IX retaliation, a plaintiff must show (1) that she engaged in protected opposition to Title IX discrimination or participated in a Title IX proceeding; (2) that plaintiff’s exercise of her protected rights was known to the defendants; (3) that she was subjected to an adverse action subsequent to or contemporaneous with the protected activity; and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.