Case Brief
Briefing the Case Assignment
In the renowned Supreme Court Case of Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education, the rule of law was held to be that retaliating against a person because he has complained of being discriminated on the grounds of sex falls under a branch of intentional sex discrimination, which is encompassed by Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. This was an important case with respect to intentional sex discrimination and never before had such principle of law been enunciated by the Judiciary.
In the light of the selected case, teacher by the name of Roderick Jackson, who was teaching in the Birmingham, Alabama public school system, brought a suit against the Birmingham Board of Education alleging that the board retaliated against him because he complained about sex discrimination at Ensley High School. Roderick Jackson had previously taught for a period of six years in the school district in Birmingham and had then been transferred to Ensley High School as a physical education teacher as well as a coach for the girls’ basketball team. Upon working there for a considerable period of time since the year of 1999, he found that not many facilities and equipment were provided as should have been for the girls’ teams and that the founding that was given to them was extremely low. In December 2000, Jackson began complaining about the unequal treatment, and began receiving negative evaluations. Jackson was removed as the girls’ basketball coach in May 2001. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed Jackson’s claims on the grounds that Title IX’s private right of action does not include claims of retaliation. The case talks about how an individual can take advantage of the pre-conceived notion of sex and then take it from there to challenge the integrity of a man. Judge Sandra O’Connor held that retaliation on the basis of sex discrimination is intentional sex discrimination and falls within the purview of
In the renowned Supreme Court Case of Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education, the rule of law was held to be that retaliating against a person because he has complained of being discriminated on the grounds of sex falls under a branch of intentional sex discrimination, which is encompassed by Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. This was an important case with respect to intentional sex discrimination and never before had such principle of law been enunciated by the Judiciary.
In the light of the selected case, teacher by the name of Roderick Jackson, who was teaching in the Birmingham, Alabama public school system, brought a suit against the Birmingham Board of Education alleging that the board retaliated against him because he complained about sex discrimination at Ensley High School. Roderick Jackson had previously taught for a period of six years in the school district in Birmingham and had then been transferred to Ensley High School as a physical education teacher as well as a coach for the girls’ basketball team. Upon working there for a considerable period of time since the year of 1999, he found that not many facilities and equipment were provided as should have been for the girls’ teams and that the founding that was given to them was extremely low. In December 2000, Jackson began complaining about the unequal treatment, and began receiving negative evaluations. Jackson was removed as the girls’ basketball coach in May 2001. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed Jackson’s claims on the grounds that Title IX’s private right of action does not include claims of retaliation. The case talks about how an individual can take advantage of the pre-conceived notion of sex and then take it from there to challenge the integrity of a man. Judge Sandra O’Connor held that retaliation on the basis of sex discrimination is intentional sex discrimination and falls within the purview of
Cited: Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education 544 US 167 (2005) “Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972.” DOL.com. Unite States Department of Labor. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm>.