The National Women’s Law Center fights for gender justice—in the courts, in public policy, and in our society.
Crowther & Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Why It Matters
From the beginning, Congress intended Title IX to prohibit a wide range of discrimination against a broad class of people, including employees in academia. Preventing employees from enforcing their rights under Title IX would unequivocally break from the statute’s spirit and history, as well as Supreme Court and other federal courts’ precedent. Because women and girls at all levels of employment and education continue to face pervasive sex discrimination, it is critical that everyone in federally funded educational institutions, including school employees, be able to vindicate their rights under Title IX in court.
Summary
On Friday, July 17, 2026, NWLC and our law firm partner, Mehri & Skalet, filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Crowther & Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, two consolidated cases on appeal from the Eleventh Circuit. The cases involved two school employees bringing lawsuits in federal district court seeking to enforce their rights under Title IX. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that school employees do not have a right under Title IX to sue in court for sex discrimination they face. Both employees petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which it granted.
Our brief urges the Supreme Court to hold that, in accordance with the statute’s plain text and legislative history, employees have a right to bring Title IX claims in court. Our brief outlines that—as the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly recognized—Title IX’s expansive text makes clear that Congress intended the statute to encompass a broad range of protections for a broad class of people.
Our brief also explains that, as Title IX’s legislative history illustrates, Congress was well aware of the pervasive sex discrimination women working in academia faced when enacting Title IX. Women’s rights advocates, women working in academia, and members of Congress involved in drafting and advocating for Title IX all testified to the urgent need to address the discrimination women faced in hiring, promotions, and pay. This history shows that Congress fully intended for Title IX to compensate not just for sex discrimination against students, but also against women employees, which persists today.
Our brief also uplifts the work of the advocates and legislators that led to Title IX’s adoption. One such advocate is Dr. Bernice Sandler, who was known as the “Godmother of Title IX” for her tireless efforts to catalogue and present to Congress the extensive discrimination women faced at the time. The key legislative drafters include Senator Birch Bayh, Congresswoman Edith Green, and Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, who all testified to the urgent need for Congress to address sex discrimination against women employees. Their stories all underscore that prohibiting employees from going to court to vindicate their rights under Title IX would undeniably contravene the spirit of the statute.
Five gender-justice and civil rights organizations joined our brief: the American Association of University Women, Equal Rights Advocates, Legal Momentum, Public Justice, and Women’s Law Project. Our brief was also joined by Senator Mazie Hirono, Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester, Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, and Gwendolyn Mink, an academic and the daughter of Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink.
Read our brief here.
