Our Take
The 11th Circuit's 2024 ruling created a circuit split, but the Court's 2005 Jackson precedent favors employee standing—the real question is whether justices narrow that precedent or leave it intact.
Why it matters
HR teams at universities and schools nationwide operate under conflicting legal guidance depending on circuit jurisdiction. A Supreme Court decision will resolve whether Title IX complaints from employees trigger institutional liability or fall solely under Title VII employment law.
Do this week
Employment counsel: audit your Title IX complaint intake and investigation protocols for employees in the 11th Circuit (Georgia, Florida, Alabama) to prepare for either expansion or contraction of employee standing by October 2026.
The Supreme Court accepts a Title IX employment discrimination case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, a case that will determine whether school and university employees can privately sue their employers for sex discrimination under Title IX. The case will be heard in the October 2026 term.
The case originated in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in 2024 that Title IX's private right of action does not extend to employees. That decision conflicts with at least eight other circuits that have recognized employee standing. The 11th Circuit declined to rehear the case in 2025.
Two University System of Georgia employees brought the original claims. MaChelle Joseph, a women's basketball coach at Georgia Tech, was terminated in 2019 shortly after filing an internal complaint alleging sex discrimination in resource allocation between her program and the men's team. Thomas Crowther, an art professor at Augusta University, had his contract non-renewed in 2021 following student complaints of inappropriate conduct and a Title IX investigation. Both filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sued under Title IX and other federal statutes in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Their cases were consolidated on appeal.
The 11th Circuit's reasoning rested on the Spending Clause framework. The court argued that because Title IX was enacted under the Spending Clause, federal funding recipients would not reasonably understand they had accepted liability for employment discrimination damages under Title IX when Title VII already provides an explicit framework for employment discrimination claims.
A 20-year-old precedent now faces scrutiny
The case echoes Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, decided by the Supreme Court in 2005. In that case, the Court ruled that Roderick Jackson, a girls' basketball coach at a public high school, had the right to pursue private litigation under Title IX after receiving negative evaluations and termination following complaints that his team lacked equal funding and access to facilities.
Since the Jackson decision, every circuit court to consider the question has answered yes to employee standing under Title IX, until the 11th Circuit's 2024 ruling. In their August 2025 petition to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Joseph and Crowther highlighted this consensus: "Since this Court's decision in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education … every court of appeals to have considered the question presented here has answered yes. The Eleventh Circuit held otherwise."
The Supreme Court's decision will either reaffirm or narrow Jackson and resolve the conflict across circuits.
What employers and institutions should monitor
Institutions in circuits that currently recognize employee standing face potential liability for sex discrimination claims brought by staff. A Supreme Court ruling that affirms the 11th Circuit's position could eliminate that liability nationwide and potentially require employees to rely solely on Title VII, which carries different standards, remedies, and procedural requirements.
Conversely, if the Court reaffirms Jackson, the 11th Circuit's ruling will be reversed, and all circuits will operate under a uniform standard that includes employee standing.
The decision will affect how universities and schools design Title IX complaint procedures, investigation protocols, and training for employees. Institutions currently operating under the assumption of employee standing may need to restructure liability frameworks if the Court sides with the 11th Circuit.