Why Education Employers Should Pay Attention to the Crowther Case

Author: Jacob M. Monty, Monty & Ramirez LLP

Typically, employees can sue their employers for sex discrimination or retaliation under Title VII. But now, a certain case going before the U.S. Supreme Court could provide employees of federally funded educational institutions with another avenue for bringing such claims.

In Crowther & Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court will decide whether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions the ability to sue for sex discrimination or retaliation claims against their employers. Here is why education employers should pay attention to the Crowther case.

Title VII vs. Title IX: What’s the Difference?

Although both Title VII and Title IX prohibit sex-based discrimination, these statutes differ significantly in their procedural requirements and available remedies.

Title VII prohibits employment-based sex discrimination. Before filing a lawsuit under Title VII, an employee generally must file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charge must be filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, although the deadline may extend to 300 days. Also, Title VII places statutory caps on the amount a plaintiff can recover if they successfully litigate their case based on the employer’s size, ranging from $50,000 to $300,000.

Title IX, enacted in 1972, provides that “[n]o 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.” In simpler terms, Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.

Unlike Title VII, Title IX does not require administrative exhaustion before a claimant can file a lawsuit in court, does not impose a 180–300-day EEOC charge filing deadline, and does not limit the recoverable damages. But the important question is: how is the Crowther case changing how these can be utilized in higher education, and why is it important for employers?

The Crowther Case

Historically, Title IX has been understood to protect students from sex-based discrimination and retaliation. Additionally, in the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Education, the Court allowed a professor, an employee, to file a lawsuit against the institution alleging that he faced retaliation when opposing discrimination against students.

Now, Crowther is intended to clarify whether such employees can file lawsuits against educational institutions and employers based on the discriminatory conduct or retaliation that they personally face.

Why Is This Important for Employers?

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Crowther case could have significant consequences for employers in the education sector. If the Court reverses the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and holds that employees may bring employment discrimination or retaliation claims under Title IX, employees may be able to file lawsuits faster and recover more damages if they successfully litigate their cases.

This outcome could increase litigation expenses for colleges, universities, and other federally funded educational institutions that will have to spend more money to defend lawsuits. Also, this could increase pressure on such institutions to settle matters rather than litigate because of the unpredictable nature of trials that could result in employers incurring large judicial judgments.

What Should Employers Do?

Employers should continue monitoring the case and prepare for the possibility that the Supreme Court’s decision may change the litigation landscape for employment-related sex discrimination and retaliation claims in the education setting. Employers in this setting should review their internal complaint-handling practices now, ensure that Title IX and HR personnel understand when matters may implicate both student-facing and employment policies, and confirm that decision-makers document legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for discipline, contract nonrenewal, or termination decisions. The case is docketed for the Supreme Court’s October 2026 Term, with oral argument scheduled for November 30, 2026.

Contact Monty & Ramirez LLP For Skilled Guidance on Employer Compliance in the Education Sector

If you are concerned about Title IX compliance and why education employers are paying attention to the Crowther case, Monty & Ramirez LLP provides skilled employment and business law guidance. Contact us today for more information.