Othon v. Wesleyan University
612 F.Supp.3d 35
D. Conn.2020Background
- Christina Othon, an associate professor of physics at Wesleyan (hired 2010), alleges sex-based bias from male students and systematically biased student teaching evaluations that adversely affected her reappointment and tenure reviews.
- Her third- and fifth-year reviews relied heavily on negative student evaluations; an initial termination decision was later overturned but teaching evaluations were deemed "central" going forward.
- Othon filed an internal sex‑discrimination complaint with Wesleyan’s Office of Diversity & Equity in June 2016; the investigation closed with no remedial action. Her tenure was ultimately denied in February 2017.
- Othon sued in June 2018 asserting Title VII and Title IX claims for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation; Counts Three and Four asserted Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims.
- Wesleyan moved to dismiss Counts Three and Four, arguing Title IX provides no private cause of action for employment discrimination (so Title VII is the exclusive private remedy); the court granted the motion and dismissed those counts with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX implies a private right of action for employment discrimination (including hostile‑work‑environment claims) | Othon: Title IX’s implied private remedy covers employees and therefore extends to employment discrimination claims | Wesleyan: Title VII supplies the exclusive private remedy for employment discrimination; allowing Title IX suits would circumvent Title VII's comprehensive administrative scheme | Court: No private remedy under Title IX for employment discrimination; Counts Three dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Jackson v. Birmingham requires a different result for retaliation claims under Title IX | Othon: Jackson recognizes retaliation as a form of sex discrimination under Title IX and supports her retaliation claim | Wesleyan: Jackson addressed retaliation in the context of protesting student‑program discrimination, not classic employment discrimination; it does not override Title VII’s role | Court: Jackson does not alter outcome; Title IX does not furnish a private employment remedy here, so Title IX retaliation claim (Count Four) dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (recognized an implied private right of action under Title IX)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (monetary damages are available in private Title IX suits)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (retaliation is actionable under Title IX)
- North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (HEW/DOE may regulate employment practices under Title IX; Title IX covers employment discrimination in federally funded programs)
- Lakoski v. James, 66 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.) (Title VII provides the exclusive private remedy for employment discrimination in federally funded educational institutions)
- Waid v. Merrill Area Pub. Schs., 91 F.3d 857 (7th Cir.) (concluded Title VII precludes Title IX private employment damage claims)
- Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545 (3d Cir.) (held Title IX can provide a private remedy for employment discrimination; illustrates circuit split)
- Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (statutes with comprehensive remedial schemes can preclude alternative remedies)
- Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (Title VII can be the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination in certain contexts)
- Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1 (comprehensive statutory schemes may foreclose other remedies)