Amicus Curiae Brief — Thomas Crowther, et al., Petitioners v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, et al.

No. 25-183

IN THE

Supremee Courtt off thee Unitedd Statess

THOMAS CROWTHER & MACHELLE JOSEPH,

Petitioners,

v.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, et al.,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW

CENTER, GWENDOLYN MINK,

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,

AND GENDER JUSTICE ADVOCATES

AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

SHIWALI G. PATEL

ELIZABETH E. THERAN

HUNTER F. IANNUCCI

ELIZABETH X. TANG

NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW

CENTER

1530 I St. NW, Ste. 700

Washington, D.C. 20005

ELLEN EARDLEY

Counsel of Record

ANDREA DOBSON-FORSEE

DEE UM

MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC

2000 K St. NW, Ste. 325

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 822-5100

eeardley@findjustice.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ..............................1

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………….7

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................8

ARGUMENT .............................................................10

I. CONGRESS ENACTED TITLE IX TO

PROVIDE INDIVIDUALS WITH BROAD

PROTECTION AGAINST SEX

DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES .......................10

A. Title IX’s Legislative History Confirms

Congress’s Intent to Eliminate

Discrimination Against a Broad Class of

Individuals, Including Employees ............11

B. This Court Has Repeatedly Affirmed That

Congress Wrote Title IX Using

Expansive Language to Protect a Broad

Class of Individuals, Including

Employees .................................................22

II. SINCE TITLE IX’S ENACTMENT, SEX

DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION HAS

REMAINED PERVASIVE ................................27

CONCLUSION ..........................................................33

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Campbell v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ.,

892 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2018)..............................27

Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago,

441 U.S. 677 (1979)............................ 22-24, 26, 33

Crowther v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.,

121 F.4th 855 (11th Cir. 2024) ............................24

Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr.,

850 F.3d 545 (3d Cir. 2017) .................................27

Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Schs.,

503 U.S. 60 (1992)................................................25

Hiatt v. Colo. Seminary,

858 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 2017)............................27

Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ.,

544 U.S. 167 (2005).................................. 25-27, 33

Lakoski v. James,

66 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 1995)..................................27

Lipsett v. Univ. of Puerto Rico,

864 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1988) ................................27

Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,

603 U.S. 369 (2024)..............................................21

North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell,

456 U.S. 512 (1982)............................ 17, 23-27, 33

O’Connor v. Peru State Coll.,

781 F.2d 632 (8th Cir. 1986)................................27

iii

Preston v. Virginia ex rel. New River Cmty. Coll.,

31 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 1994)..................................27

Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ.,

48 F.4th 686 (6th Cir. 2022) ................................27

Vengalattore v. Cornell Univ.,

36 F.4th 87 (2d Cir. 2022)....................................27

Waid v. Merrill Area Pub. Schs.,

91 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1996)..................................27

West Virginia v. B.P.J.,

609 U.S. ___ (2026) ..............................................21

Statutes

20 U.S.C. § 1681 ...................................... 11, 17, 24-25

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e et seq. ................................ 1-3, 8-9, 19-21

Education Amendments of 1972,

Pub. L. No. 92-318 ..................................... 1, 17, 19

Education Amendments of 1976,

Pub. L. No. 94-482 ...............................................21

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972,

Pub. L. No. 92-261 ...............................................19

Legislative Materials

Discrimination Against Women: Hearings Before the

Special Subcomm. on Educ. of the House Comm.

on Educ. & Labor, 91st Cong. (1970) ............10, 13

iv

Sex Discrimination Regulations: Review of

Regulations to Implement Title IX: Hearings

Before the Subcomm. on Postsecondary Educ. of

the H. Comm. on Educ. & Lab.,

94th Cong. (1975) .................................................20

H.J. Res. 113, 107th Cong. (2002) (Patsy Takemoto

Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act) .......16

H.R. 16098, 91st Cong. (1970) (Omnibus

Postsecondary Education Act, § 805) ..................11

117 Cong. Rec. 39248 (1971) .....................................16

118 Cong. Rec. 5111 (1972) ........................... 10, 17, 19

122 Cong. Rec. 28136 (1976) .....................................21

Other Authorities

Alieza Durana et al., New America, Sexual

Harassment: A Severe and Pervasive Problem

(Sept. 26, 2018) ....................................................28

Am. Council on Educ., Women in the College

Presidency (2023).................................................32

Anais Lorens et al., Gender Bias in Academia: A

Lifetime Problem That Needs Solutions, 109

Neuron 2047 (2021) .............................................29

Ass’n of Am. Univs., David Cantor et al., Report on

the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual

Assault and Misconduct (rev. Jan. 17, 2020)......28

Bernice Resnick Sandler, Title IX: How We Got It

and What a Difference It Made, 55 Clev. St. L.

Rev. 473, 474 (2007)...............................................7

v

Catherine D. Clark & Janeen M. Hill, Reconciling

the Tension Between the Tenure and Biological

Clocks to Increase the Recruitment and

Retention of Women in Academia (2010)............29

Christopher H. Tienken et al., AASA: The Sch.

Superintendents Ass’n, 2024-2025

Superintendent Salary & Benefits Study (Mar.

2025) .....................................................................31

Dep’t of Educ., Nat’l Ctr. for Educ. Stats., Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM) Education, by Gender ............................31

Elizabeth Tang et al., Nat’l Coalition for Women &

Girls in Educ., Title IX at 50 (2022) ..............28, 30

Glenn Colby & Ruben Guzman, Am. Ass’n of Univ.

Professors, Data Snapshot: Women Faculty and

Faculty of Color, Fall 2023 (Oct. 2025) ...............32

Jeanine L. M. Skorinko et al., Overlapping Stigmas

of Pregnancy, Motherhood, and Weight: Policy

Implications for Employment and Higher

Education, 7 Pol’y Insights from Behav. & Brain

Scis. 123 (2020) ....................................................29

Jessica Bryant, Percentage of Women Presidents at

Elite Research Universities Is Increasing, Best

Colleges (June 8, 2023) ........................................32

Josia Klein et al., Nat’l Women’s L. Ctr., Best

Practices: Supporting Pregnant and Parenting

Students in Middle Schools and High School

(2024) ....................................................................29

Katie Spoon et al., Gender and Retention Patterns

Among U.S. Faculty, 9 Sci. Advances (2023) ......32

vi

Kayla Patrick & Neena Chaudhry, Nat’l Women’s L.

Ctr., Stopping School Pushout for Girls Who

Have Suffered Harassment and Sexual Violence

(2017) ....................................................................28

Lyss Welding, Women in Higher Education: 5 Key

Facts and Statistics, Best Colleges

(Apr. 6, 2023)........................................................32

Madeline Will, The Gender Pay Gap Is a Problem for

Teachers, Too, Educ. Week (Mar. 13, 2023) .......31

Men’s Basketball Head Coach Salaries & Women’s

Basketball Head Coach Salaries, USA Today ....30

Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, Demographics

Database (2024-25) ..............................................30

Nat’l Inst. of Health, NIH Data Book, Research

Grants: Awards by Sex (2026) .............................31

Ronke M. Olabisi, The Pregnancy Drop: How

Teaching Evaluations Penalize Pregnant Faculty,

8 Humanities & Soc. Scis. Comms. 1 (2021) .......29

Soheyla Taie et al., Dep’t of Educ., Inst. of Educ.

Scis., Characteristics of 2020-21 Public and

Private K-12 School Principals in the United

States (Dec. 2022) ................................................31

1

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE

The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)

is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization that fights

for gender justice in the courts, in public policy, and

in our society. NWLC’s work spans the issues that are

central to the lives of women and girls—especially

women and girls of color, LGBTQI+ people, and lowincome women and families. Since its founding in

1972, NWLC has worked to secure equal opportunity

in education and employment for girls and women

through

full

enforcement

of

constitutional

protections, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,

among other state and federal statutory vehicles. This

work has included advocacy with federal

policymakers and participation in numerous Title IX

and Title VII cases as counsel and amicus curiae,

including before this Court, to ensure that rights and

opportunities in education, in the workplace, and

elsewhere are not unlawfully restricted based on sex. 1

The American Association of University

Women (AAUW) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit

organization founded in 1881 that advances equity for

women and girls through research, education, and

advocacy. AAUW has long supported robust

enforcement of Title IX and related civil rights

protections, including by joining prior amicus briefs

defending equal educational opportunity and

opposing sex discrimination. AAUW joins this brief

1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, no counsel for any party authored this

brief in whole or in part and no counsel or party made a

monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or

submission of this brief.

2

because Title IX’s promise cannot be fulfilled if the

women and workers who teach, lead, coach, and

support students are denied the ability to enforce

their own rights against sex discrimination.

Equal Rights Advocates (ERA) is a national

civil rights advocacy organization dedicated to

protecting and expanding economic and educational

access and opportunities for people of all

marginalized gender identities. Since its founding in

1974, ERA has practiced Title IX, Title VII, and

related laws, leading efforts to combat sex

discrimination and advance gender equality through

litigation, policy reform, community education and

outreach, and providing free legal assistance to

individuals experiencing discrimination at work and

in school. ERA has filed hundreds of suits and

appeared as amicus curiae in numerous cases to

defend and enforce gender equity protections in state

and federal courts, including before this Court. ERA

strongly asserts that Congressional intent requires

broad application of Title IX in education programs

and activities, including as it applies to employees

and employment conditions, in order to effectuate the

original purpose and intent of Title IX.

Legal Momentum, the Women’s Legal

Defense and Education Fund (Legal Momentum)

is the nation’s first and longest serving women’s

rights advocacy organization. For over 55 years, Legal

Momentum has used the law to advance gender

equity and expand economic opportunity for women

and girls. It has extensive experience litigating and

participating as amicus curiae in cases involving the

interpretation and enforcement of laws prohibiting

3

sex discrimination, including Title VII and Title IX. It

has advocated before this Court, including in cases

addressing Title IX's protections against sex

discrimination and harassment in education.

Through its litigation, amicus and policy advocacy,

Legal Momentum has developed expertise in the

interpretation and enforcement of federal civil rights

laws prohibiting sex discrimination and therefore has

a strong interest in the Court's resolution of the

questions presented.

Public Justice is a national public interest

advocacy organization that fights against abusive

corporate power and predatory practices, the assault

on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the

earth’s sustainability. Public Justice has, for decades,

litigated and advocated on behalf of workers and

students who have experienced discrimination,

including sexual harassment. From its significant

experience, Public Justice recognizes that judicial

enforcement of federal sex discrimination laws that is

consistent with the statutes’ full breadth and promise

is crucial to ensuring students and employees who

have endured discrimination receive the redress they

deserve.

The Women’s Law Project (“WLP”) is a

Pennsylvania-based public interest legal organization

working to defend and advance the rights of women,

girls, and LGBTQ+ people in Pennsylvania and

beyond. WLP leverages impact litigation, policy

advocacy, public education, and direct assistance and

representation to dismantle discriminatory laws,

policies, and practices and eradicate institutional

biases and unfair treatment based on sex or gender.

4

WLP’s advocacy efforts include equity in education,

including athletics. Throughout its history, WLP has

played a leading role in efforts to eliminate sex

discrimination

in

athletics

and

education,

representing student athletes in their efforts to

achieve equal treatment and equal opportunity and

pursuing public policy and educational initiatives

aimed at realizing Title IX’s goal of equality in

athletics.

Gwendolyn Mink is the daughter of the late

Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink of Hawai’i, for

whom Title IX was renamed in 2002. As a woman

working in academia, whose scholarship centers on

law, politics, and gender, Gwendolyn Mink has

benefitted firsthand from the critical work her mother

did to secure opportunities for all women working in

education. From 1980 to 2001, she was a professor of

politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz,

where she chaired the Status of Women Committee

for ten years. From 2001 to 2008, she was a professor

of women’s studies at Smith College, where she held

the Charles N. Clark Chair. She also chaired the

steering committee of the Women’s Committee of 100

in the 1990s, a group of academics, activists, and

policy experts committed to advising members of

Congress on welfare reform. She has written about

her mother’s groundbreaking contributions to the

fight for gender equality as a key legislative champion

of Title IX in her most recent book, Fierce and

Fearless: Patsy Takemoto Mink, First Woman of Color

in Congress. Through the work she has done to carry

forward her mother’s legacy, Gwendolyn Mink has a

strong interest in the Court’s resolution of the

question presented.

5

Senator Mazie K. Hirono is a U.S. Senator

and the first Asian American woman and first woman

senator from Hawai‫ދ‬i. She was a close friend of the

late Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, for whom Title

IX was renamed in 2002, and has been the lead

Senate sponsor since 2019 of the Patsy T. Mink and

Louise M. Slaughter Gender Equity in Education Act

to strengthen implementation of Title IX. In 2022, she

sponsored and secured the passage of the Speak Out

Act, which protects employees who experience sexual

harassment from being silenced by nondisclosure

agreements. That same year, she also introduced the

Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights

Act, which would strengthen Title IX’s protections

against sex harassment, and the Survivor Outreach

and Support on Campus Act, which would bolster

sexual assault prevention and response in

institutions of higher education. In June 2026, she led

a bicameral resolution commemorating the 54th

anniversary of Title IX’s passage. Having dedicated

her career to championing strong Title IX protections

and safeguarding all individuals, including

employees, from sex discrimination, Senator Hirono

has a strong interest in ensuring that this Court

properly considers Title IX’s purpose and legislative

intent in deciding this case.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester is a U.S.

Senator from Delaware. In 2026, she cosponsored the

Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing

Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination (BE

HEARD) in the Workplace Act, which would

strengthen civil rights protections against workplace

harassment. As a member of the House of

6

Representatives, she cosponsored the Ending the

Monopoly of Power Over Workplace Harassment

through Education and Reporting Act, which would,

among other things, ban non-disclosure agreements

as a condition of employment, promotion, or

compensation, and she advocated to protect the

EEOC’s collection of demographic data. In June 2026,

she co-led a bicameral resolution commemorating the

54th anniversary of Title IX. As a champion of strong

protections against workplace sex discrimination,

Senator Blunt Rochester has a strong interest in

ensuring this Court affirms that employees may avail

themselves of all available remedies under Title IX.

Congresswoman Adelita S. Grijalva

proudly represents Arizona’s 7th Congressional

District, making history as the first Latina elected to

represent Arizona in the U.S. Congress. Throughout

her career in public service, she has been a steadfast

advocate for educational equity, gender equality, and

civil rights. Before her election to Congress, she

served for 20 years on the Tucson Unified School

District Governing Board and four years as Pima

County District 5 Supervisor. In both roles, she

championed inclusive education policies, strong

investments in public schools, and the protection of

students’ rights. Since taking office, Congresswoman

Grijalva has continued that commitment by coleading a letter to the Department of Education

urging the restoration and vigorous enforcement of

Title IX protections for survivors of sexual

harassment and assault. She also led a bicameral

resolution commemorating the 54th anniversary of

Title IX’s enactment. As a member of Congress,

Representative Grijalva remains committed to

7

advancing and defending Title IX’s promise. She has

a strong interest in ensuring that this Court fully

considers the statute’s purpose and legislative intent

in resolving this case.

INTRODUCTION

As a would-be full-time professor of counseling,

psychology, and economics in the late 1960s, Dr.

Bernice “Bunny” Sandler was, by every objective

measure, as qualified as the men hired over her. Yet,

when she sought a faculty position at the University

of Maryland in 1969 after completing her doctorate,

she was rejected, and a faculty member—a man—

explained it was because she “comes on too strong for

a woman.” Bernice Resnick Sandler, Title IX: How We

Got It and What a Difference It Made, 55 Clev. St. L.

Rev. 473, 474 (2007). Dr. Sandler initially believed

this assessment, blaming herself for participating in

class and speaking up as a graduate student. She

continued to be passed over for other full-time faculty

positions. One interviewer explained to Dr. Sandler

that he would not hire women because they stayed

home to care for sick children. An employment agency

counselor dismissed her as “not really a professional”

and “just a housewife who went back to school.” Id.

Dr. Sandler soon recognized these rejections for

what they were—sex discrimination—and she

discovered that she was far from alone. She collected

stories from women across the country and, after

learning that many universities were doing the same

to other women, filed federal discrimination charges

against “about 250 schools” and a class action against

all universities in the United States. Id. at 475–76.

8

Her research for the House Special Subcommittee on

Education in Congress produced the first federal

report documenting sex discrimination in education

in the United States, and her work became a

foundation for the vast legislative record on which

Congress built Title IX. For her groundbreaking

work, which all started because she faced

employment discrimination in academia, Dr. Sandler,

who passed away in 2019, is affectionately known as

the “Godmother of Title IX.” 165 Cong. Rec. E817

(2019).

If she were alive today, Dr. Sandler would have

much to be proud of. Our nation’s women and girls

stand on her shoulders, and they continue to benefit

from her legacy in education. But neither Dr. Sandler

nor the Congress that passed Title IX would

understand why, all these years later, this Court is

now questioning whether the statute covers sex

discrimination against employees in educational

settings. This Court should stay the course that

Congress set in 1972 and that the overwhelming

majority of courts, including this Court, have followed

since.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

As this Court has recognized on more than one

occasion, the contemporaneous legislative histories of

Title IX and Title VII make clear that Congress

intended educational faculty and staff to have redress

under both statutes, not one or the other. Title IX’s

language and legislative history make clear that

Congress intended the law to sweep broadly to

address the rampant sex discrimination in

9

educational institutions it had observed, including

discrimination against faculty and other employees in

pay, hiring, and promotions. Further, that Congress

enacted both Title IX and the Equal Employment

Opportunity Act of 1972, which removed Title VII’s

original exemption for educational institutions, at the

same time reflects that Congress understood these

provisions to work together as parts of a whole. This

Court has relied on this legislative history repeatedly

to reach the same conclusion: Title IX was intended

to, and does, protect against a broad swath of sex

discrimination in education, including against

educational employees.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision below failed to

account for this important context and was wrongly

decided. Effectuating Title IX’s broad remedial

purpose is just as important today as it was at the

time of the statute’s enactment because individuals,

particularly women, working in educational settings

continue to face sex discrimination in employment.

This Court should honor Congress’s intent and

reaffirm that employees of educational institutions

have a private right of action to enforce Title IX.

10

ARGUMENT

I. CONGRESS ENACTED TITLE IX TO

PROVIDE INDIVIDUALS WITH BROAD

PROTECTION

AGAINST

SEX

DISCRIMINATION

IN

EDUCATION

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

During the hearings and debates leading to

Title IX’s passage, Congress extensively documented

and

considered

the

profound

employment

discrimination

that

women

at

educational

institutions were facing. Witnesses, including

women’s rights advocates, academics, and school

administrators, offered testimony during the 1970

Congressional hearings on discrimination against

women in educational programs that was replete with

examples of employment discrimination in schools.

See Discrimination Against Women: Hearings Before

the Special Subcomm. on Educ. of the House Comm.

on Educ. & Labor, 91st Cong. 242 (1970).

In introducing Title IX, Senator Birch Bayh

articulated that the “impact of this amendment” was

meant to be “far-reaching,” 118 Cong. Rec. 5111, 5808

(1972), as it was “designed to root out, as thoroughly

as possible at the present time, the social evil of sex

discrimination in education.” Id. at 5804. The

testimony and data before Congress at the time of

Title IX’s creation and passage make clear that the

“social evil of sex discrimination in education” that

Congress intended Title IX to “root out” necessarily

included discrimination against women employees.

The statute’s text reflects this broad purpose, and this

Court has made it crystal clear that, because

11

Congress used expansive language in drafting Title

IX, the statute demands an equally expansive

interpretation to eliminate all forms of sex

discrimination against any person who participates in

or is denied the benefits of an education program.

This includes guaranteeing employees the ability to

seek redress for sex discrimination in private

litigation.

A. Title IX’s Legislative History Confirms

Congress’s

Intent

to

Eliminate

Discrimination Against a Broad Class of

Individuals, Including Employees.

Title IX provides that “[n]o person in the

United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any education

program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (emphasis added). As

the legislative record—filled with testimony,

congressional remarks, and data—makes plain,

Congress intended for Title IX to protect women, like

Dr. Sandler, who faced rampant employment

discrimination by educational institutions.

In 1970, as Chair of the House Special

Subcommittee on Education, Representative Edith

Green introduced Title IX’s direct precursor, Section

805 of H.R. 16098, the Omnibus Postsecondary

Education Act, and convened the first congressional

committee hearings on sex discrimination in

education. Due in large part to Dr. Sandler’s research

and

the

extensive

record

of

employment

discrimination in higher education that she compiled

12

and placed before Congress, those hearings, spanning

seven days, focused heavily on the discriminatory

landscape women faced in academic employment. Dr.

Sandler and other witnesses documented colleges’

and universities’ refusal to hire, promote, or give

tenure to women, as well as institutions’ refusal to

pay women working as full-time faculty or provide

them with benefits or even office space merely

because their husbands taught at the same

institution.

Dr. Sandler’s testimony underscored that sex

discrimination was “ingrained” in our society and

negatively impacted women’s ability to secure faculty

positions, their opportunities for advancement in

education, and their salaries. Across educational

institutions,

women

were

consistently

underrepresented as faculty, with few achieving

tenure. Id. at 299 (at Harvard’s Graduate School of

Arts, “of the 411 tenured professors … not one is a

woman”; at the University of Connecticut, while 33%

of the instructors are women, only 4.8% of the full

professors

are

women;

at

University

of

Massachusetts, only two of sixty-five women have

tenure). She lamented that “[t]he higher the rank, the

lower the percentage of women” represented. Id.

(pointing to a study of 188 sociology departments that

showed women made up 30% of doctoral candidates;

27% of the full-time instructors; 14% of the assistant

professors; 9% of the associate professors; 4% of the

full professors; and fewer than 1% of the department

chairs). Dr. Sandler also demonstrated that women

were significantly underpaid compared to men at all

levels,

noting

“numerous

national

studies”

documented that women working as instructors,

13

assistant professors, associate professors, full

professors, and deans all made less than men in the

same positions. Id. at 301.

Dr. Sandler explained that sexist stereotypes

influenced the prevailing attitude on campuses that

women were simply not fit to be professionals. 91st

Cong. 242, 326 (“A professor in my own department

…

sees

nothing

wrong

in

telling

his

students, men and women, that ‘women shouldn’t be

professionals.’”); see also id. at 300 (women are denied

job opportunities because of attitudes that “if a

woman is not married, she’ll get married. If she is

married, she’ll probably have children. If she has

children, she can’t possibly be committed to a

profession.”). “Essentially,” she concluded, “our

universities punish women for being women.” Id. at

325.

Other witnesses’ testimony sounded similar

themes. For example, Dr. Ann Sutherland Harris, a

professor at Columbia University, said “[t]he higher

in terms of rank, salary, prestige, or responsibility,

the fewer the number of women to be found.” Id. at

244–25. See also id. at 253 (noting that Princeton

tenured a woman for the first time in 1969, and that

as of 1970, Yale had tenured only three women

professors and Harvard had no women full or

associate professors). Drawing from statistics of

women’s distribution in faculty positions, she

concluded that sexist attitudes impacted the way

women were treated in employment. Id. at 244; see

also id. at 253, 254 (explaining that universities often

refused to hire women if their husbands worked in the

same department and “[t]he idea that women,

14

married or single, don’t really need jobs or need them

as much as men do is a hard one to kill”). Similarly,

Dr. Ann Scott, Chairwoman of the National

Organization of Women’s Coordinating Committee

and a Professor at University of Buffalo, noted “the

progressive evaporation of women as we climb the

academic ladder, until at the top women simply

disappear.” Id. at 210. She pointed to a 1970 survey of

her university showing that women constituted 20%

of assistant professors, 17% of associate professors,

5% of full professors, and fewer than 1% of the top

administration. Id. Dr. Scott named “the cultural

attitude” that made discrimination against women

“acceptable” as the culprit. Id.

Other witnesses

testified that

sexist

stereotypes about women’s leadership were just as

common at elementary and secondary schools. As

Daisy K. Shaw, Director of Educational and

Vocational Guidance of New York City, remarked in

her testimony, “the majority of teachers” in “schools

across the country” were usually women and the

principal was usually a man, owing to the fact that

“[w]hen people think of a leader they more generally

tend to think of a man in that position because of a

long process of conditioning.” Id. at 445. She also

noted that “male superintendents usually select male

executive assistants” because “they feel more

comfortable working with men,” and that both men

and women “dislike working for a woman.” Id. And

Virginia R. Allan, Chairwoman of the President’s

Task Force on Women’s Rights and Responsibilities,

noted the “gross discrimination against women in

education” made apparent by the “depressing”

statistics from a National Education Association

15

study: men held 75% of elementary-school principal

positions in the 1966-1967 school year, 96% of the

junior-high-school principal positions in the 19641965 school year, and 90% of the high-school principal

positions in the 1963-1964 school year. Id. at 452.

Employment discrimination was not a peripheral

concern of the 1970 Hearings; it was their centerpiece.

That record was squarely before Congress when it

enacted Title IX.

Representative Patsy Mink—who would go on

to cosponsor Title IX with Representative Green and

is known today as the “Mother of Title IX” for her

advocacy, leadership, and authorship of the

legislation—also testified at the 1970 Hearings about

the discrimination faced by women who worked in

academia. She told the committee: “Discrimination

against women in education is one of the most

insidious forms of prejudice extant in our nation …

Universities discriminate against women in hiring

faculty,” which “reinforces the system of prejudice on

our campuses that systemically deprives women of

equal education.” Id. at 433. She described the

discrimination: “when employed, women faculty

members are frequently paid less than their male

counterparts even though equally competent and

equally experienced. Women faculty members are

promoted less frequently than men. Even

administration reflects the same pattern; deans of

women are frequently paid less than deans of men.”

Id. And she left no doubt about its cause: “[c]learly,

these differences do not occur by accident. They are

the direct result of consciously discriminatory

policies….” Id. at 434.

16

Representative Mink’s testimony carries

particular interpretative weight. As a member of the

Education and Labor Committee, she became a key

champion of Title IX, cosponsoring the legislation in

1971 and helping secure its passage in 1972. 143

Cong. Rec. H4217–18 (1997). Indeed, Congress itself

has commemorated her Title IX leadership: in 2002,

it passed a Joint Resolution, H.J. Res. 113, to rename

Title IX as the “Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal

Opportunity in Education Act.” Patsy T. Mink Equal

Opportunity in Education Act, Pub. L. No. 107-255,

116 Stat. 1734 (2002). That one of the statute’s

primary sponsors and eventual namesake made

employment discrimination part of her testimony is

especially telling: the evil at which Congress meant to

strike included discrimination against women

working in academia, not only those studying there.

Even the members who sought to narrow Title

IX’s coverage understood—and assured their

colleagues—that the statute would protect employees.

In 1971, during House debate on amendments to the

Higher Education Act, Representative John

Erlenborn proposed exempting undergraduate

admissions from the sex discrimination prohibition of

Title X of the House bill, the provision that became

Title IX. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248–63 (1971). In urging

its adoption, Representative Erlenborn stressed how

much his amendment would leave intact: it would still

“allow the effects of nondiscrimination in this title to

apply to faculty, to employees, and to admission

practices in the graduate schools so that the entry to

the professions would be protected,” and it would

withdraw only “provision against sex discrimination

in the case of undergraduate admissions.” Id. at

17

39260 (emphases added). (Congress ultimately

adopted a narrower version of his amendment limited

to admissions at private undergraduate institutions.

20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1).)

Senator Bayh, who introduced the language

ultimately enacted as Title IX during the Senate’s

debate on the Education Amendments of 1972, told

his colleagues that “sex discrimination reaches into

all facets of education—admissions, scholarship

programs, faculty hiring and promotion, professional

staffing, and pay scales…. The only antidote is a

comprehensive amendment such as the one now

before the Senate,” which “would cover such crucial

aspects as admissions procedures, scholarships, and

faculty employment, with limited exceptions.” 118

Cong. Rec. 5111, 5803 (1972) (emphasis added).

Senator Bayh could not have been clearer

about the statute’s application to employment

discrimination. He named “employment practices for

faculty and administrators” first on his list of areas of

coverage “where abuse has been mentioned.” Id. at

5807. When Senator Claiborne Pell inquired further

about coverage, Senator Bayh responded that it

included, among other things, “discrimination in

employment within an institution, as a member of

faculty or whatever.… In the area of employment, we

permit no exceptions.” Id. at 5812 (emphasis added).

And in fact, employment is notably absent from Title

IX’s narrow list of specific enumerated exemptions.

N. Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521–22

(1982) (“in fact, the absence of a specific exclusion for

employment among the list of exceptions tends to

18

support the … conclusion that … ‘person[s]’ does

extend to employees”).

Senator Bayh also cited numerous statistics

demonstrating how women faculty were treated as

second-class citizens in hiring, promotions, and pay.

Indeed, the Congressional Record documenting the

debate devotes an entire section to “Discrimination in

Hiring

and

Promotion

of

Faculty

and

Administrators.” Id. at 5804. He referenced a study

examining the gender makeup of faculty within

thirty-six law schools from 1968-1970, which showed

dramatic disparities between rates of hire for women

and men. Id. at 5805 (noting that “out of a total of

1,625 faculty members, only 35 or 2.1 percent were

women”). In Bayh’s words, this study reflected “the

rule … that once hired, women do not receive

advancement as often as men.” Id. (observing that

while almost half of the men at these schools were

working as full professors, only 10% of women

achieved the same status). Bayh said it was “just as

clear” that there was a “[p]reference for men over

women to fill administrative posts” at all levels of

education, lamenting the significant dearth of women

principals and superintendents in K-12 schools or top

administrators at colleges and universities. Id.

(referencing statistics from the 1970 Hearings

showing that women make up only 22% and 4% of

elementary school principals and high school

principals, respectively; only two of 13,000 school

superintendents; and “less than 1 percent of top

administrators” at institutions like the University of

Buffalo). Bayh also cited the gross gender disparities

in pay at all levels of university employment. Id.

(citing a 1970 factsheet from the Women’s Bureau of

19

the U.S. Department of Labor finding that, from 19651966, women working as instructors were paid $410

less than men; paid $576 less as assistant professors;

paid $742 less as associate professors; and paid

$1,119 less in full professorships).

Strikingly, even though Congress passed Title

IX mere months after passing the Equal Employment

Opportunity Act of 1972, which removed Title VII’s

original exemption for educational institutions,

Congress never suggested withholding Title IX’s

remedial protections from employees. In fact, history

points the other way. During the debates on the

Education Amendments of 1972, Senator Bayh

introduced the language that became Title IX

alongside provisions mirroring Title VII’s extension to

educational institutions. He presented them as a

single, integrated package, as a response to “the

simple, if unpleasant, truth” that “we still do not have

in law the essential guarantees of equal opportunity

in education for men and women.” 118 Cong. Rec.

5111, 5803–08. As noted, in summarizing the portion

of his amendment prohibiting “sex discrimination in

federally funded education programs,” “employment

practices for faculty and administrators” were first on

Senator Bayh’s list of areas of coverage “where abuse

has been mentioned.” Id. at 5807. As to the other

portion of his amendment prohibiting “educationrelated employment discrimination,” he explained

that it “would apply Title VII’s widely recognized

standards of equality of employment opportunity to

educational institutions.” Id. Senator Bayh plainly

understood the two statutes would do different work

even where they overlapped: Title VII would supply

familiar employment standards, and Title IX would

20

independently prohibit employment discrimination

as a condition of federal funding. Congress enacted

both. The presence of one remedy was never meant to

extinguish the other.

At no point did Senator Bayh—or anyone

else—suggest that Title VII’s newly extended

coverage of educational institutions displaced Title

IX’s protections for employees. Congress meant Title

VII and Title IX to be complementary regimes for

protecting employee rights in education programs, as

this Court has recognized for decades. That Congress

enacted Title IX three months after it amended Title

VII does not mean that Congress somehow, sub

silentio, intended for only one of the statutes to

provide a remedy for employment discrimination by

educational institutions.

If the legislative history predating Title IX’s

enactment were not clear enough, Congress’s actions

post-enactment reaffirm the statute’s broad reach. In

1975, Congress reviewed the Title IX regulations

issued by the Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare (HEW)—the Department of Education’s

predecessor—to ensure they were “consistent with the

objectives” of the statute. Sex Discrimination

Regulations: Review of Regulations to Implement

Title IX: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on

Postsecondary Educ. of the H. Comm. on Educ. &

Lab., 94th Cong. 467 (1975). Among other things,

those regulations detailed how Title IX protects

employees from discrimination by federally funded

educational institutions—protections that remained

in the regulations after Congress’s review. Indeed, as

this Court recently emphasized, these “regulations

21

took effect on July 21, 1975, and they remain in place

today. Because HEW’s interpretation of Title IX was

‘issued contemporaneously with the statute’ and has

‘remained consistent over time,’ it is ‘especially useful

in determining the statute’s meaning.’” West Virginia

v. B. P. J., 609 U.S. ___, slip op. at 9 (2026) (citing

Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 394

(2024)).

Congress also rebuffed additional efforts to

narrow the statute’s coverage. During debates on the

Education Amendments of 1976, for example, Senator

James McClure sponsored an amendment to restrict

the definition of “educational program or activity” to

the “curriculum or graduation requirements of the

institutions” receiving federal funds, which the

Senate rejected. 122 Cong. Rec. 28136, 28147 (1976).

Senator Bayh opposed the amendment in part

because it “would exempt those areas of traditional

discrimination against women that are the reason for

congressional enactment of title IX,” including

“employment and employment benefits.” Id. at 28144.

Again, by 1976, Congress had already extended Title

VII to employees of educational institutions—yet,

neither Senator Bayh nor the Senate treated that

coverage as any reason to read employment out of

Title IX.

From the testimony that inspired the statute to

the sponsors who wrote it and the Congress that

refused to narrow it, the legislative record speaks

with one voice: Title IX was enacted to combat a wide

swath of sex discrimination in federally funded

education programs and activities. That swath

unquestionably includes discrimination against the

22

women and the many other employees who work in

our nation’s schools.

B. This Court Has Repeatedly Affirmed that

Congress Wrote Title IX Using Expansive

Language to Protect a Broad Class of

Individuals, including Employees.

Time and time again, this Court has affirmed

that, because of Title IX’s broad language, its scope is

expansive and applies to individuals experiencing sex

discrimination in a federally funded educational

program or activity—including employees. Seven

years after Congress passed Title IX in 1972, this

Court held in Cannon v. University of Chicago that

the statute includes an implied private right of action

to enforce the prohibition on sex discrimination in

education programs or activities. 441 U.S. 677 (1979).

This Court came to this conclusion in part because it

found that Geraldine Cannon—a graduate student

who alleged she was denied admission to medical

school because of her sex—was an intended

beneficiary of the statute, which “confers a benefit on

persons discriminated on the basis of sex.” Id. at 690–

94 (emphasis added). This Court also relied on Title

IX’s legislative history to conclude that Congress

intended to create a private remedy under the statute.

Id. at 694–703. Notably, in recognizing that remedy,

this Court made no distinction as to the category of

“person[s]” entitled to invoke it—much less suggest

that it is not available for employees. This was

because, as the Cannon Court observed and the

legislative history makes clear, one of Congress’s key

purposes in enacting Title IX was “provid[ing]

individual citizens effective protection against

23

[discriminatory] practices,” 441 U.S. 677, 705 (1979).

(emphasis added)—not students alone.

To make matters even clearer, this Court held

a few years later, in North Haven, 456 U.S. at 521,

that school employees are “persons” to whom Title IX

applies. In so holding, this Court acknowledged there

is “no doubt that ‘if we are to give [Title IX] the scope

that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as

broad as its language.’” Id. Like in Cannon, this Court

focused again on Title IX’s use of the word “person” to

hold that the 1975 HEW regulations detailing Title

IX’s protections against employment discrimination

were consistent with the plain text of the statute. Id.

at 520 (Title IX’s “broad directive that ‘no person’ may

be discriminated against on the basis of gender

appears, on its face, to include employees as well as

students.”). In particular, this Court noted that

“Congress easily could have substituted ‘student’ or

‘beneficiary’ for the word ‘person’ if it had wished to

restrict the [statute’s] scope.” Id. at 521. The

legislative history confirmed what the text said.

Reviewing

Senator

Bayh’s

statements—and

recognizing that remarks from the statute’s sponsors

are “an authoritative guide to the statute’s

construction”—the Court found that Bayh had

described the amendment as reaching discrimination

in employment at educational institutions. Id. at 526–

27.

Adding together Cannon’s recognition that any

“person” has a private right of action under Title IX

plus North Haven’s holding that educational

employees are “persons” yields only one possible sum:

this Court has already decided that employees can

24

vindicate their rights under Title IX through private

lawsuits. Yet, according to the Eleventh Circuit, only

students have a private right of action because of the

statute’s “focus on educational institutions and

programs,” whereas somehow Congress’s intent to

provide employees the same remedy is less evident

because it is “less obvious” how they participate in or

benefit from education programs. Crowther v. Bd. of

Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 121 F.4th 855, 868

(11th Cir. 2024). But this distinction lacks any basis

in Title IX’s plain text, Title IX’s legislative history,

this Court’s precedent, or indeed reality—particularly

given the vast amount of information before Congress

about employees’ experiences with sex discrimination

in education programs.

First, as explained above, Cannon recognized

that individuals have a private right of action under

Title IX because of the statute’s focus on “persons”

rather than educational institutions; notably, this

Court did not distinguish between employees and

students. 441 U.S. at 690–91. Second, Title IX

protects individuals who are “excluded from

participation in,” “denied the benefits of,” or

“subjected to discrimination under any education

program or activity” on the basis of sex. 20 U.S.C.

§ 1681 (emphasis added). The explicit statutory

protections are not limited to those who “participate”

in or “benefit from” education programs. Third, even

if the statute limited its scope to those who

“participate in” or “benefit from” education programs,

this Court in North Haven already answered the

Eleventh Circuit’s question of how employees

participate in or benefit from educational programs:

“[e]mployees who directly participate in federal

25

programs or who directly benefit from federal grants,

loans, or contracts clearly fall within the first two

protective categories described in [the statute].”

North Haven, 456 U.S. at 520; see 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)

(listing these categories as “person[s]” who may not be

(1) “excluded from participation in” or (2) “denied the

benefits of … any education program or activity

receiving Federal financial assistance”). At no point

did North Haven limit its rationale to the

administrative-enforcement context, and it would be

nonsensical to suggest that its textual analysis of the

word “person” would change depending upon the

avenue of relief an employee is pursuing. Because

employees are “persons” under Title IX, they are

undeniably members of the “benefited class” who

enjoy a private right of action under the statute.

Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

further underscores that Title IX’s broad language

guarantees educational employees a private right of

action for discrimination. In finding a coach, Roderick

Jackson, could bring suit for retaliation after he

complained to his school about unequal treatment of

the girls’ basketball team, this Court held it was

immaterial that the statute did not mention

retaliation, because it has “repeated[ly] … constru[ed]

‘discrimination’ under Title IX broadly” to prohibit

various forms of misconduct not expressly

enumerated, including sexual harassment. 544 U.S.

167, 174, 175 (2005) (citing Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty

Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 74–75 (1992)); see also id. at

175 (noting that Congress used the “broad term”

“[d]iscrimination,” which “covers a wide range of

intentional unequal treatment” to “g[i]ve the statute

a broad reach”) (citing North Haven, 456 U.S. at 521).

26

This Court acknowledged that Title IX’s cause of

action was implied, derived from the statute’s

“broadly written general provision on discrimination,

followed by specific, narrow exceptions to that

broader provision.” Id. at 175. Because Congress did

not enumerate any specific discriminatory practices,

“its failure to mention one such practice does not tell

us anything about whether it intended that practice

to be covered.” Id.

Critically, Coach Jackson was not a student but

an employee—a fact that gave this Court no pause

whatsoever. Its analysis rested entirely on the

breadth of the statutory text, not on the identity of the

person invoking it. Ensuring employees have a

private right of action for sex discrimination is

consistent with Jackson’s understanding of Title IX as

striking at a wide spectrum of discrimination against

a broad class of individuals in educational

institutions. Conditioning an employee’s ability to

bring private suits on the existence of a more specific

directive in the statute cannot be reconciled with

Jackson, or with the text of Title IX itself.

Taken together, Cannon, North Haven, and

Jackson stand for the proposition that Title IX’s

expansive nondiscrimination mandate confers a

private right of action on educational employees for

sex discrimination they experience. Indeed, every

federal appellate court to consider the question since

Jackson—save the Eleventh Circuit below—has

recognized that employees and other non-

27

students may bring private lawsuits under Title IX,2

many so holding precisely because of this Court’s

decisions reaffirming that Title IX’s language sweeps

broadly. See, e.g., Vengalattore v. Cornell Univ., 36

F.4th 87, 106 (2d Cir. 2022) (“[G]iven the Supreme

Court’s Title IX rulings … we must honor the breadth

of Title IX’s language.”); Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State

Univ., 48 F.4th 686, 707 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing North

Haven, 456 U.S. at 521) (noting that North Haven “did

not limit the statute” to students, “thus, Title IX’s

plain language sweeps more broadly.”) The two

federal appellate courts that held otherwise issued

their decisions about a decade before this Court

decided Jackson. Lakoski v. James, 66 F.3d 751 (5th

Cir. 1995); Waid v. Merrill Area Pub. Schs., 91 F.3d

857 (7th Cir. 1996). This Court should reaffirm the

conclusion it already reached in Jackson, not only as

a matter of stare decisis, but also because it is most

consonant with Title IX’s text and Congress’s

unmistakable intent in passing the statute.

II. SINCE TITLE IX’S ENACTMENT, SEX

DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION HAS

REMAINED PERVASIVE.

To be sure, since Dr. Sandler began advocating

against sex discrimination in education decades ago,

there have been significant advancements for women

2 See also Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 562 (3d

Cir. 2017); Campbell v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 892 F.3d 1005,

1023 (9th Cir. 2018); Hiatt v. Colo. Seminary, 858 F.3d 1307,

1316–17 (10th Cir. 2017); Lipsett v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 864

F.2d 881, 896–97 (1st Cir. 1988); Preston v. Virginia ex rel. New

River Cmty. Coll., 31 F.3d 203, 206 (4th Cir. 1994); O’Connor v.

Peru State Coll., 781 F.2d 632, 642 n.8 (8th Cir. 1986).

28

and girls in education. Yet, sex discrimination in

education remains rampant a half-century after Title

IX

was

enacted—and

nothing

about

the

discrimination stops at the line separating students

from staff. To the contrary, the discrimination that

women and girls experience as students often follows

them into, and intensifies within, the educational

workforce. For example, more than one in five girls

ages 14 to 18 3 and nearly two in five women in college 4

are sexually assaulted, with girls and women of color

being more likely to be sexually harassed and then

ignored or punished by their schools because they are

disbelieved or blamed when coming forward. 5 Sexual

harassment continues unabated when former

students reenter schools as educators. K-12 teachers

face high rates of sexual harassment from their

colleagues and students alike. 6 And rates of sexual

harassment in academia are as high as 58% among

3 Kayla Patrick & Neena Chaudhry, Nat’l Women’s L. Ctr.,

Stopping School Pushout for Girls Who Have Suffered

Harassment and Sexual Violence 1 (2017), https://nwlc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/final_nwlc_Gates_HarassmentViolenc

e-1.pdf.

4 David Cantor et al., Ass’n of Am. Univs., Report on the AAU

Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct,

Table

33,

A7-54

(revised

Jan.

17,

2020),

https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/campus-climate-andsafety/aau-campus-climate-survey-2019.

5 Elizabeth Tang et al., Nat’l Coalition for Women & Girls in

Educ., Title IX at 50, 10 (2022), https://nwlc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/NCWGE-Title-IX-At-50-6.2.22-vF.pdf.

6 Alieza Durana et al., New America, Sexual Harassment: A

Severe and Pervasive Problem 39 (Sept. 26, 2018),

https://www.newamerica.org/insights/sexual-harassmentsevere-and-pervasive-problem.

29

faculty and staff—higher than any other work

environment except for the military.7

Pregnancy discrimination also harms students

and school employees alike. Pregnant and parenting

students of all ages face many barriers to completing

high school and college, including lack of

accommodations and supportive school policies.8

Likewise, women who have children within five years

of earning a PhD are less likely to receive tenure than

men or women who delay or forgo childbirth, 9 and

women faculty who have a child pre-tenure are 20%

less likely than men to receive tenure. 10 When women

professors of color become pregnant, even their

teaching evaluations suffer noticeably. 11

7 Anais Lorens et al., Gender bias in academia: A lifetime

problem that needs solutions, 109:13 Neuron 2047, 2063 (July 7,

2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.002.

8 Josia Klein et al., Nat’l Women’s L. Ctr., Best Practices:

Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Students in Middle Schools

and

High

School

9-10

(2024),

https://nwlc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/v2_singlepgs_nwlc_BestPracticesRepo

rt_PPS.pdf.

9 Catherine D. Clark & Janeen M. Hill, Reconciling the tension

between the tenure and biological clocks to increase the

recruitment and retention of women in academia 3 (2010),

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ903572.pdf.

10 Jeanine L. M. Skorinko et al., Overlapping Stigmas of

Pregnancy, Motherhood, and Weight: Policy Implications for

Employment and Higher Education, 7:2 Pol’y Insights from

Behavioral

&

Brain

Scis.

123,

125

(2020),

https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322209432.

11 Ronke M. Olabisi, The pregnancy drop: How teaching

evaluations penalize pregnant faculty, 8:253 Humanities &

Social Scis. Comms. 1 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599021-00926-3.

30

On the playing field, students and school

employees face sex discrimination as well. Schools

often invest less in women’s and girls’ sports,

providing them with less and lower-quality

equipment, uniforms, and fields to play on compared

to the men’s and boys’ teams. 12 While the gap is not

as stark as when Title IX was enacted in 1972, girls

and women still receive significantly fewer

opportunities—about one million less—to play school

sports compared to boys and men, and this disparity

is only exacerbated for girls of color. 13 The disparities

persist when student-athletes graduate and become

coaches. Among National Collegiate Athletics

Association (NCAA) member schools, women only

lead 41% of women’s teams and 6% of men’s teams. 14

Despite the growing popularity of women’s

basketball, the highest-paid women’s basketball head

coach among NCAA teams is paid only 37% of the

highest-paid men’s head coach, which is less than the

forty-fourth highest-paid men’s head coach. 15

Sex discrimination impacts both students’ and

school employees’ ability to succeed in the science,

12 Tang, supra note 5, at 34.

13 Id. at 33–34.

14 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, Demographics Data, Executive

Summary:

Demographics

Database

(2024-25),

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/20/demographicsdata.aspx.

15 Men’s Basketball Head Coach Salaries, USA Today (last

updated

Apr.

8,

2026),

https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mensbasketball/coach; Women's Basketball Head Coach Salaries,

USA

Today

(last

updated

Mar.

13,

2024),

https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/womensbasketball/coach.

31

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

fields. Longstanding sex stereotypes discourage girls

and women from studying STEM subjects, resulting

in women earning only 35% of all STEM degrees. 16

Again, sex discrimination does not end after

graduation.

For instance,

women principal

investigators receive only 40% of all research grants

awarded by the National Institute of Health. 17

It is no surprise, then, that sex discrimination

deeply impacts school employees’ ability to make a

living and advance in their careers. Women teachers

in K-12 schools are paid $2,200 less annually than

male teachers, despite comprising 77% of the

profession. 18 Similarly, women who are full-time

faculty members are paid eighty-four cents on the

dollar compared to their male peers. 19 Women are

only 36% of high school principals20 and 26% of school

district superintendents 21 in K-12 schools. In higher

16 Dep’t of Educ., Nat’l Ctr. For Educ. Stats., Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, by gender

(last

visited

June

26,

2026),

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=899.

17 Nat’l Inst. of Health, NIH Data Book, Data by Sex, Research

Grants: Awards by Sex and Percentage to Female (last updated

Jan. 2026), https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/16.

18 Madeline Will, The Gender Pay Gap Is a Problem for Teachers,

Too, Ed Week (Mar. 13, 2023), https://www.edweek.org/teachinglearning/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-problem-for-teacherstoo/2023/03.

19 Id.

20 Soheyla Taie et al., Dep’t of Educ., Institute of Educ. Scis.,

Characteristics of 2020–21 Public and Private K–12 School

Principals

in

the

United

States

3

(Dec.

2022),

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED624617.pdf.

21

Christopher H. Tienken et al., AASA: The Sch.

Superintendents Ass’n, 2024-2025 Superintendent Salary &

32

education, women faculty members are less likely to

be promoted, 22 be tenured or tenure-track, or hold a

full-time position, 23 and they comprise only 37% of

full-time professors. 24 Only 33% of university

presidents are women, 25 and at least ten of the top

146 research universities named their first woman

president in 2023. 26

What makes these discrepancies more

egregious is that women comprise the majority of

undergraduate and graduate students: in fall of 2022,

women made up about 8.3 million college students

and 1.8 million graduate students (whereas men

made up 6.1 million and 1.1 million, respectively). 27

Yet, once women enter the educational workforce,

Benefits Study, Non-Member Version, 11 (Mar. 2025),

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED671882.pdf.

22 Katie Spoon et al., Gender and retention patterns among U.S.

faculty,

9:42

Sci.

Advances

2

(Oct.

20,

2023),

https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi2205.

23 Glenn Colby & Ruben Guzman, Data Snapshot: Women

Faculty and Faculty of Color, Fall 2023, 2 (Oct. 2025),

https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/202510/Data_Snapshot_Women_and_Faculty_of_Color_final.pdf.

24 Id.

25 Am. Council on Educ., Women in the College Presidency (2023),

https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Women-Presidents-ACPS2023.pdf.

26 Jessica Bryant, Percentage of Women Presidents at Elite

Research Universities Is Increasing, Report Finds, Best Colleges

(June

8,

2023),

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/number-of-womenpresidents-increase-at-elite-research-institutions.

27 Lyss Welding, Women in Higher Education: 5 Key Facts and

COLLEGES

(Apr.

6,

2023),

Statistics,

BEST

https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/women-in-highereducation-facts-statistics/ -fn-7.

33

their participation, particularly in leadership

positions,

evaporates.

Sexist

attitudes

and

discrimination that women face as they climb the

academic ladder have persisted since Title IX’s

enactment and are a major contributing factor for

these outcomes.

Over fifty years after Congress confronted

pervasive employment discrimination against women

in education, that discrimination endures, and Title

IX’s promise remains unrealized. That promise can

only be meaningful for women who work in education

if they can enforce their right to be free from sex

discrimination, including in court.

CONCLUSION

The record before Congress leading up to its

creation and passage of Title IX and this Court’s

decisions in Cannon, North Haven, and Jackson all,

unequivocally, point the same way: Title IX protects

every person—including students and employees

alike—from sex discrimination in federally funded

education programs, and educational employees may

enforce that guarantee in court. The discrimination

women and girls still face today confirms how much

this guarantee matters. Half a century after Dr.

Sandler placed the evidence of employment

discrimination in education before Congress, the work

she began is far from finished. Stopping short of

guaranteeing Title IX’s promise to educational

employees would be a tragic step backwards and

would break faith with the statute, with Congress’s

unmistakable purpose, with decades of this Court’s

precedent, and with the legacy of tireless advocates

34

like

Dr.

Sandler,

Representative

Mink,

Representative Green, Senator Bayh, Ms. Cannon,

and Coach Jackson. This Court should reverse the

judgment below.

Respectfully submitted,

V(OOHQ(DUGOH\

ELLEN EARDLEY

Counsel of Record

ANDREA DOBSON-FORSEE

DEE UM

MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC

2000 K St. NW, Suite 325

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 822-5100

eeardley@findjustice.com

SHIWALI G. PATEL

ELIZABETH E. THERAN

HUNTER F. IANNUCCI

ELIZABETH X. TANG

NATIONAL WOMEN’S

LAW CENTER

1350 I St. NW, Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20005

Counsel for Amici Curiae