Citation network
Jackson Vs. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 29, 2005
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
Bd. of ED. - 02-1672 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Jackson V. BirminghamSearch
-
Bd. of ED. Supreme Court of the United States Jackson V. BirminghamSearch
-
of retaliation, and the Eleventh Circuit agreed and affirmed. The appeals court also concluded that, under Alexander v. SandovalSearch
-
that Title IX implies a private right of action to enforce its prohibition on intentional sex discrimination, Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
and that that right includes actions for monetary damages by private persons, Franklin v. GwinnettSearch
-
s deliberate indifference to sexual harassment of a student by a teacher, Gebser v. LagoSearch
-
or by another student, Davis v. MonroeSearch
-
enactment of Title IX just three years after Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
adequate notice that it could be held liable for the conduct at issue, see, e.g., Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
Bd. of ED. - 02-1672 (2005) Opinion of the Court Jackson V. BirminghamSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1672 Roderick Jackson, Petitioner V. BirminghamSearch
-
Id ., at 1344. Relying on our decision in Alexander v. SandovalSearch
-
s private right of action encompasses claims of retaliation for complaints about sex discrimination. Compare Lowrey v. TexasSearch
-
Preston v. VirginiaSearch
-
a). More than 25 years ago, in Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
intentional sex discrimination. In subsequent cases, we have defined the contours of that right of action. In Franklin v. GwinnettSearch
-
s sexual harassment of a student, Gebser v. LagoSearch
-
or to sexual harassment of a student by another student, Davis v. MonroeSearch
-
see also Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
see also id ., at 75 (noting that, under Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSearch
-
by using such a broad term, Congress gave the statute a broad reach. See North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. BellSearch
-
intended that practice to be covered. Title IX was enacted in 1972, three years after our decision in Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
Sullivan was discrimination on the basis of race. B The Board contends that our decision in Alexander v. SandovalSearch
-
Id., at 285. See also Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. FirstSearch
-
citing Barrows v. JacksonSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Bennett v. KentuckySearch
-
dissenting opinion). See also Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. FirstSearch
-
Bd. of ED. - 02-1672 (2005) Thomas, J., Dissenting Jackson V. BirminghamSearch
-
right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, for sex discrimination that it implied in Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
s sex, not the sex of some other person. See Leocal v. AshcroftSearch
-
cf. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. GuerraSearch
-
s sex. See, e.g. , United States v. BurkeSearch
-
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSearch
-
U. S. 604 , 610 (1993). Cf. Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
reaches claims of vicarious liability for sexual harassment are therefore inapposite here. See, e.g. , Davis v. MonroeSearch
-
Gebser v. LagoSearch
-
Franklin v. GwinnettSearch
-
North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. BellSearch
-
protection of the primary right and serves as a prophylactic measure to guard the primary right. See Crawford-El v. BrittonSearch
-
Robinson v. ShellSearch
-
Alexander v. SandovalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial