Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.

Eleventh Circuit

Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.

416 F.3d 1280, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13982, 2005 WL 1621044

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 2005

Docket02-11303

StatusPublished

This text of 416 F.3d 1280 (Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 416 F.3d 1280, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13982, 2005 WL 1621044 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before DUB IN A, MARCUS and GOODWIN * , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On March 29, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to a petition for a writ of certiorari and response thereto, rendered its opinion vacating this Court’s opinion in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2002), and remanding the cause to us for further consideration. See Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005).

In our prior, now-vacated opinion, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs complaint, in which he alleged that the Defendant retaliated against him in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the regulations implementing it. Based on our review of the text and structure of Title IX, we found no implied private cause of action in favor of individuals who, although not themselves the victims of gender discrimination, suffer retaliation because they have complained about gender discrimination suffered by others. Accordingly, we affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint.

In vacating our opinion, the Supreme Court found that Title IX encompassed an implied private cause of action for retaliation, such as Plaintiffs, and held that “Title IX’s private right of action encompasses suits for retaliation, because retaliation falls within the statute’s prohibition of intentional discrimination on the basis of sex.” Jackson, 125 S.Ct. at 1506-07.

Under the circumstances, it is necessary that the matter receive further consideration in the district court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause is remanded for consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Jackson.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before DUB IN A, MARCUS and GOODWIN * , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On March 29, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to a petition for a writ of certiorari and response thereto, rendered its opinion vacating this Court’s opinion in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2002), and remanding the cause to us for further consideration. See Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005).

In our prior, now-vacated opinion, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs complaint, in which he alleged that the Defendant retaliated against him in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the regulations implementing it. Based on our review of the text and structure of Title IX, we found no implied private cause of action in favor of individuals who, although not themselves the victims of gender discrimination, suffer retaliation because they have complained about gender discrimination suffered by others. Accordingly, we affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint.

In vacating our opinion, the Supreme Court found that Title IX encompassed an implied private cause of action for retaliation, such as Plaintiffs, and held that “Title IX’s private right of action encompasses suits for retaliation, because retaliation falls within the statute’s prohibition of intentional discrimination on the basis of sex.” Jackson, 125 S.Ct. at 1506-07.

Under the circumstances, it is necessary that the matter receive further consideration in the district court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause is remanded for consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Jackson.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 F.3d 1280, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13982, 2005 WL 1621044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roderick-jackson-v-birmingham-bd-of-ed-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack