Michael Burch had been the University of California, Davis' head men's wrestling coach since 1995. He was employed through one-year contracts and was classified as a part-timer in the athletic department. UCD acknowledged that the wrestling team's win-loss record, and the wrestling program overall, improved significantly during Burch's tenure. Despite that, on May 29, 2001, the university told Burch his contract would not be renewed. Burch sued. He accused UCD of retaliation in violation of Title IX. Burch alleged that he was fired because he opposed UCD's sex discrimination against female wrestlers and he publicly advocated for them. After the court determined that Burch had established a basic case of discrimination, UCD had to give a legitimate explanation for its decision to dismiss him. First, UCD attorneys claimed the decision was made before it learned that Burch was advocating on behalf of the female wrestlers, which is a protected activity under Title IX. Second, it stated its decision was based on Burch's conflicts within the athletic department, his disregard for rules, his unreasonable demands for more money, his repeated budget deficits, and his failure to cooperate during an investigation into possible National Collegiate Athletic Association violations. Burch v. Univ. of Cal., No. CV.S 04 0038 WBS GGH (106 LRP 35968) (E.D. Cal. 2006). Should the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California allow Burch to proceed with his Title IX retaliation claims? a. No, because UCD had a legitimate explanation for its decision to fire him. b. No, because the university's reasons were not legitimate in light of Burch's successful record as coach. c. Yes, if Burch could show that the university's articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. d. Yes, because Title IX guarantees plaintiff's a right to a jury trial in all cases of sexual discrimination. Correct answer: c. Yes If a university offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, a plaintiff has the chance to show the explanation is merely a pretext for discrimination. A plaintiff can establish pretext by showing either 1) unlawful discrimination more likely motivated the university, or 2) the university's given explanation is unworthy of credence because it is inconsistent or otherwise not believable. To avoid dismissal, Burch had to show the university's articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. He identified several inconstancies in UCD's arguments that cast doubt on the reliability of its explanation. "The repeated instances where [Burch] has identified weaknesses and contradictions in [UCD's] proffered reasons satisfy the 'unworthy of credence' prong of the pretext analysis and cast sufficient doubt on [UCD's] explanation," the court stated.
Ward’s request unethical and Mrs. Ward’s unwillingness to change her position necessitated an informal review. That review included the academic supervisor along with the practicum supervisor and the student. Offered to the student were three options: complete a remediation plan, resign from the Counseling program, or request a university formal review. The university’s Formal Review Committee consisting of one student and two professors, all from the Counseling Department and one professor from the Education Leadership Department, determined she violated the university’s code of ethics and therefore was dismissed her from the Counseling Program. The dismissal led to the first court case, Ward v. Willbanks. The trial court ruled in favor of Eastern Michigan University (EMU) through summary judgment. Mrs. Ward appealed the case to the state appellate court, who reversed the decision and returned the case to the lower court for adjudication. Judicial adjudication was avoided, however, as the university settled with Mrs. Ward with a monetary payment and the removal of the expulsion from her
Title IX nowhere states that an individual can receive a monetary solution whenever a case is taken to court. With this case Franklin had no kind of justice from the school or the law before she filed her lawsuit. She was persuaded into thinking that she did not have to press any criminal charges against Hill. When taken into district court, her case was dismissed due to the fact that Title IX did not support monetary damages. When the Supreme Court took over the case, the court reversed the district court’s decision. The supreme court stated that monetary damages were available in a private right of action under Title IX such as Franklins case. The second question being brought up in this case is what "sex" cases are ruled under Title IX. The Title IX law specifies sex discrimination in education and does not refer to sexual harassment. In Franklin 's case it is a case doing with sexual harassment and sexual abuse. The analogy with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it prohibits sex discrimination in employment, the courts faced an issue prior to Franklins case to find that sexual harassment has been viewed as actionable sex discrimination under Title VII by both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal
...urt ordered the university to stop enforcing its quota system, but the university appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed this case in 1978.
Duke University, a female place kicker alleged sexual discrimination when she was not selected for Duke Universities football team, one of the contact sports in the Title IX regulations. Although no woman had ever participated on the team Duke University did not specifically say that football at the university was not a coed team (Stevens, 2004). North Carolina district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the “regulation did not contain an exception for any particular position that may not require physical contact” (Stevens, 2004). On Appeal, the fourth circuit court reviewed the “separate teams” subsection of Title IX and noted that Duke University had allowed this woman to tryout for coed sports team deeming her qualified to be a member of the team (Stevens, 2004). The verdict in this case is the first documented case awarding punitive damages in a Title IX athletics related case. Title IX’s purpose is to prevent discrimination against women in educational forums, but by institutions diminishing Title IX’s mandate, the commission is allowing and justifying the rationalization of on going discrimination against
Davis, Michelle R. “Title IX Panel Contemplates Easing Proportionality Test.” Education Week 11 Dec. 2002: 22.
1. It states that; “No 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 educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title IX applies to all educational institutions, both public and private, that receive federal funds. Almost all private colleges and universities must abide by Title IX. Athletics are not the specific target for Title IX; Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: 1.) Participation: does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play; 2.) Scholarships 3.) Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes such as: equip, games, tutoring.
“Title IX is a law passed in 1972 that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding” (“History”, Part. 2). Title IX covers 10 different aspects of gender equality (“History” Par. 3 ). The different aspects are: Access to Higher Education, Career Education, Education for Pregnant and Parenting Students, Employment, Learning Environment, Math and Science, Standardized Testing and Technology, Sexual Harassment. One of the hardest areas to regulate is sexual harassment and assault because once it occurs there isn’t a lot you can do for the victim.
... Students, Archibald Epps, could have pointed out clear pieces of hate speech and defamation, he did not.
Title IX is also known as the Education Amendment Act of 1972. It enforces that there is no discrimination based upon sex in any sports program. “The difference between amateur and professional sports lies in reward that each group receives for athletic performances.” (Athletics). “Title IX does get blames for cutting men’s sports. It allows schools to decide what teams they will offer, both men and women’s.” (Generation IX). “Over the past twenty five years, the relationship between girls and sports has changed dramatically.” (Mcphee 139-142). It has transformed the way sports will be forever.
Title IX qualifies as a social justice issue because it addresses social inequalities. Women before Title IX were not accorded the same rights as men in federally funded school systems, such as quality of education in certain circumstances or equal opportunity to participate in sports programs. These inequalities in education lead to further injustices, such as unequal distribution of women in high level positions and unequal pay, since women who have a deficient education do not rise as high as women who received an equal one. In athletics, women who did not have an opportunity to participate in the athletic program of their choice may not have reached their full potential. This is usually due to a lack of equipment or instruction, but it could also lead to a missed opportunity to go to college.
Discrimination of women has been going on throughout the world since almost the beginning of time. Since the year of 1972, the United States of America has passed a law called title IX, which has improved women’s rights drastically. Title IX states: “No 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.”(Office) Within a college/university or any federal financially assisted program title IX is applied. Women are to be treated equally and are given the opportunity to be involved in all activities that men are offered. Title IX has changed a women’s life in a positive way with the changes that have affected many women attending a college or university. Schools have to allow women in any classes that are offered but for sports it is a bit different. The school has to offer the same number of opportunities for women sports as men sports. Some have said that this will cause schools to cut some of the men’s sports to allow for equal numbers. “Overall, men's athletic opportunities since Title IX's passage have increased,” said the Women’s Sports Foundation.(Women’s) Many say that this is unfair to remove some of the men’s athletics, but is it fair that the women do not have to same opportunities that the men do? Title IX is not all about athletic equality; it also is involved in the classrooms and on the campuses of the college or university. Several main issues that title IX has improved are sexual harassment, equality in the classroom, equality in extracurricular activities and self-confidence in women.
To Deborah Brake, Title IX caused a problem in school sports. This federal law Prohibits discrimination based off a persons sex. She discussed how to equalize school sports considering the physical differences in males and females. There are two different viewpoints on this issue. Some people simply think there can be gender integrated sports while others think gender segregated sports are better.
"Title IX and Sex Discrimination." U.S. Department of Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Schoettle, F. P. (1971). The equal protection clause in public education. Columbia Law Review, 71(8), 1355-1419.
Title IX states that no woman can be discriminated against in any sport. This means equal mon...