Bowers v. Baylor Univ. - 862 F. Supp. 142 (W.D. Tex. 1994)

Rule:

The Court stated: Because Title IX neither expressly nor impliedly excludes employees from its reach, we should interpret the provision as covering and protecting these 'persons' unless other considerations counsel to the contrary. After all, Congress easily could have substituted 'student' or 'beneficiary' for the word 'person' if it had wished to restrict the scope of Title IX.

Facts:

Plaintiff, Pam Bowers, was hired by the defendant, Baylor University to coach its women's basketball team. Plaintiff complained about the disparate allocation of resources in the men's and women's basketball programs, including but not limited to the disparate terms and conditions of her employment versus the men's basketball coach. The defendant was aware of plaintiff's complaints. Plaintiff's employment was initially terminated by defendant. After her termination, plaintiff filed a complaint with the federal agencies. Immediately after filing the complaint, plaintiff was notified that she would be reinstated but despite her reinstatement, plaintiff continued to pursue her employment complaints. Plaintiff’s claims were asserted exclusively under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Plaintiff raised no claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17, under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), or under state law. Plaintiff contends that defendant and various members of its administration violated Title IX by discriminating against her on the basis of sex and by retaliating against her for challenging defendant's alleged discriminatory conduct. Plaintiff then sought a declaratory judgment that defendant's practices were unlawful, a permanent injunction to restrain further discrimination, a mandatory injunction to reinstate her as defendant's head women's basketball coach, back pay and benefits, compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff's claims were not based upon an express remedy found in Title IX, but rather on a theory that she has an implied cause of action under Title IX.

Issue:

1. Did the plaintiff’s complaint state any valid claim for relief under Title IX?

2. Should individual defendant’s motion be dismissed?

Answer:

1. Yes. 2. Yes.

Conclusion:

1. The Court held that a private cause of action for damages under Title IX existed in this case based upon three Supreme Court decisions hence defendant school’s motion to dismiss should be denied. The court further stated that while the court and minority of Supreme Court justices might agree with defendant school’s reasoning, the current precedents dictated a ruling in favor of the plaintiff. The court then held that this would lead the Supreme Court take the next logical step of recognizing plaintiff's cause of action under Title IX.

2. The court agreed with the individual defendants' position. The individual defendants were administrators and employees of defendant school, and do not constitute educational institutions in and of themselves. The Court did not accept the plaintiff's reasoning, and was of the opinion that § 100.7(e) is not a procedural provision. Therefore, the court held that they should be dismissed with prejudice, leaving only defendant school as a defendant in this case.