WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court expanded the scope of a landmark gender equity law, ruling Tuesday that it shields whistleblowers who accuse academic institutions of discrimination based on sex.
The 5-4 decision in favor of Alabama high school girls basketball coach Roderick Jackson is a victory for women’s advocates who say the legal protection will prompt reports of bias that would otherwise go unsaid or unheeded.
The ruling means Jackson can pursue a lawsuit claiming he was fired for complaining that the boys team received better treatment. Congress intended such lawsuits when it passed the Title IX law, justices said.
Justice Clarence Thomas was among the four dissenters: Whistleblowers shouldn’t be given protection unless Congress explicitly says so, said Thomas and three other justices who voted no. They noted that other civil rights laws have specific provisions addressing retaliation.
Under the ruling, schools now may be forced to pay compensatory and punitive damages for retaliation claims, something that was never contemplated when they chose to accept federal funding, the dissenting justices said.
For information and resources related to discrimination, please click here.
More from LawInfo.com
Is the shield law unnecessary as Justice Thomas explains, or will it effectively protect whistleblowers? Please post your comments below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court expanded the scope of a landmark gender equity law, ruling Tuesday that it shields whistleblowers who accuse academic institutions of discrimination based on sex.
The 5-4 decision in favor of Alabama high school girls basketball coach Roderick Jackson is a victory for women’s advocates who say the legal protection will prompt reports of bias that would otherwise go unsaid or unheeded.
The ruling means Jackson can pursue a lawsuit claiming he was fired for complaining that the boys team received better treatment. Congress intended such lawsuits when it passed the Title IX law, justices said.
Justice Clarence Thomas was among the four dissenters: Whistleblowers shouldn’t be given protection unless Congress explicitly says so, said Thomas and three other justices who voted no. They noted that other civil rights laws have specific provisions addressing retaliation.
Under the ruling, schools now may be forced to pay compensatory and punitive damages for retaliation claims, something that was never contemplated when they chose to accept federal funding, the dissenting justices said.
For information and resources related to discrimination, please click here.
More from LawInfo.com
Is the shield law unnecessary as Justice Thomas explains, or will it effectively protect whistleblowers? Please post your comments below.
