Title IX Covers Employment, Supreme Court Says

White, Eileen
May 1982
Education Week;5/26/1982, Vol. 1 Issue 35, p1
The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the law barring sex discrimination in education programs applies not only to students, but also to school employees. This decision affirmed the right of the Education Department to cut off federal funds to school districts that are found guilty by federal investigators of discriminating against female employees. Termination of funds is subject to the program-specific limitation of the law.


Related Articles

  • Ruling Seen as Symbolic, Legal Victory. Weeks, Margaret L. // Education Week;5/26/1982, Vol. 1 Issue 35, p1 

    The article reports that after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects school employees and students, federal investigators have began preparing to reactivate their investigations into complaints of sex discrimination in educational employment....

  • Judge Says District Can Keep Offering Single-Sex Classes.  // Education Week;2/13/1985, Vol. 4 Issue 21, p4 

    The article reports that Francis L. Young, a federal administrative law judge, ruled that the Pickens County School District in South Carolina can continue to offer both single-sex and coeducational physical-education classes because the said programs do not receive federal funds. Young claimed...

  • Department May Collect Interest On Misspent Grants, Court Rules. T. M. // Education Week;4/13/1988, Vol. 7 Issue 29, p15 

    The article reports on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that allows the U.S. Education Department to charge interest on allegedly misspent federal grants. The department alleged that the Hayward Unified School District had misused grants during 1970 and 1971. The district judge holds that...

  • Civil-Rights Rules Will Not Apply to Guaranteed Loans.  // Education Week;3/24/1982, Vol. 1 Issue 26, p2 

    The article reports that universities and colleges whose only form of federal aid is through the Guaranteed Student Loans will no longer be subject to the U.S. Department of Education's regulations that prevent sex discrimination. On this regard, the Department of Justice has stressed out that...

  • Campus Outrage. Pesta, Abigail // Marie Claire (US Edition);Jul2011, Vol. 18 Issue 7, p82 

    The article focuses on the sexual harassment complaint filed by Yale University students with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. The complaint, of violation of Title IX law related to gender discrimination in education, has been filed against male students who marched...

  • College May Be Dangerous for Men. SCHLAFLY, PHYLLIS // Human Events;9/19/2011, Vol. 67 Issue 32, p18 

    The article criticizes the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) sent by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to colleges and universities for adopting the feminist theory that in all sexual controversies or accusations, the man is guilty unless proven innocent. It details how the DCL...

  • High Court to Hear Impact-Aid Case. Tonn, Jessica L. // Education Week;12/13/2006, Vol. 26 Issue 15, p18 

    The article focuses on the case of Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education (Case No. 05-1508). Two New Mexico school districts will argue that the U.S. secretary of education violates a law that determines which states can consider federal impact aid when assigning funds to...

  • Court Hears Arguments in Prayer Case. Walsh, Mark // Education Week;04/05/2000, Vol. 19 Issue 30, p1 

    Deals with the United States Supreme Court's reception to the debate on the 1995 policy of the Santa Fe, Texas school district that allows student-led prayers at football games. Role of the policy in promoting student expression according to the district; Details on the lawsuits filed against...

  • Court allows random drug testing.  // Techniques: Making Education & Career Connections;Nov/Dec98, Vol. 73 Issue 8, p8 

    Cites a ruling by the United States Supreme Court allowing a school district in Indiana to continue random drug testing for students in extracurricular activities. Lower court ruling that testing does not violate a student's right to privacy; Support by High Court of drug testing policy for...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics