To Roderick L. Jackson, winning his case at the U.S. Supreme Court would be vindication for standing up for what he believes. To the broader education community, the case is about much more.
A self-described shy guy, the 39-year-old physical education teacher from Birmingham, Ala., is at the center of a dispute that has leading education groups lined up on opposite sides. At issue is whether teachers or coaches who suffer reprisals for complaining about violations of the federal law barring sex discrimination in education programs have a right to seek redress in court.
The outcome of the case could have ripple effects well beyond the athletic arena, and even beyond the area of sex discrimination in schools. Retaliation claims involving laws against bias based on race, disability, and age could all be affected, lawyers in both camps say.
As the Nov. 30oral arguments in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (Case No. 02-1672) approach, the National Education Association and the National School Boards Association are among the groups that have weighed in with friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.
A ruling against Mr. Jackson would 鈥渆viscerate鈥� federal anti-discrimination laws, Michael D. Simpson, the NEA鈥檚 assistant general counsel, said in a recent interview.
鈥淔rankly, it鈥檚 a fairly widespread problem,鈥� he said of retaliation against school employees who complain about various kinds of discrimination against their students. 鈥淚f you can be punished for complaining, then violations will never come to light.鈥�
But the district and its allies say that allowing lawsuits in retaliation cases is entirely unnecessary, given all the other legal and administrative safeguards available to school employees in such circumstances.
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 have to pave a new path to the courthouse, because school employees have lots of avenues or protections they can use,鈥� said Julie Underwood, the general counsel of the NSBA. 鈥淚n this one, even if he could get redress, it would not benefit the students.鈥�
Labeled a Rabble-Rouser
Leaders of the 32,000-student Birmingham school district have kept a low profile, referring all questions about the case to their lawyers.
Mr. Jackson, by contrast, has been less reticent about stating his case. At a press conference here this month at the offices of the National Women鈥檚 Law Center, which now represents him, Mr. Jackson said he hasn鈥檛 enjoyed being branded a 鈥渞abble-rouser, troublemaker, and 鈥� whistle-blower.鈥�
But he said he felt compelled by a sense of fairness to complain to his superiors about conditions that hurt girls on his team at Birmingham鈥檚 Ensley High School, where he was hired as head girls鈥� basketball coach in the summer of 1999.
鈥淚t was very important that the young ladies receive the same educational opportunities as the young men,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 believe they are equal.鈥�
Lawyers for the district dispute both that the girls鈥� team was treated unfairly and that Mr. Jackson suffered retaliation for his complaints. But because the legal argument focuses on whether the lower courts were right to dismiss the case without a trial, the high court will assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Jackson鈥檚 version of events is accurate.
In the fall and spring of the 2000-01 school year, Mr. Jackson repeatedly complained, he says, that his players were getting shortchanged compared with the boys鈥� teams.
For example, the girls鈥� team recieved no money from ticket sales and had to practice in an unheated gym built in 1908, Mr. Jackson says, while the boys practiced in a new gym and got to keep proceeds from the gate. The boys were allowed a junior-varsity squad while the girls were not, he says, and the girls had to find their own rides to away games rather than travel on a school-provided bus, as the boys did. Access to such basic facilities as the school ice machine was denied to the girls鈥� team, he adds, forcing him to break into the machine once when a player from an opposing team got injured during a game.
A veteran of the U.S. Army Reserve, Mr. Jackson said he took his concerns 鈥渦p the chain of command,鈥� from the school athletic director, to the principal, to the district athletic director, and finally to an assistant superintendent. But instead of improvements, he said, he started getting bad job evaluations and was warned to keep quiet.
Then, in May 2001, he was stripped of his coaching duties and the extra income they brought, although as a tenured teacher, he kept his teaching post. Receiving a certified letter at home telling him he was sacked as coach, he recalled, was 鈥渁 devastating feeling.鈥�
A few months after his firing, Mr. Jackson hired a private lawyer and sued in federal court. After his case was summarily dismissed in early 2002, he ended up representing himself before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, only to lose once more. The appellate ruling brought his case to the attention of the National Women鈥檚 Law Center, which began representing him shortly afterward.
Not Discrimination
The problem, the appeals court held in October 2002, was that the federal law Mr. Jackson sued under, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, doesn鈥檛 mention a right to sue over alleged retaliation suffered by those complaining about violations. Neither does it protect complainants who aren鈥檛 direct victims of the discrimination targeted by the law, the court found.
Mr. Jackson鈥檚 lawyers, backed by the Bush administration, say that a right to sue over retaliation is implied in Title IX, which forbids sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal money. Besides, they argue, he was more than an 鈥渋ndirect鈥� victim of discrimination, as the 11th Circuit court held.
鈥淚t鈥檚 very unfair and arbitrary to say that he didn鈥檛 suffer along with the team,鈥� said Marcia D. Greenberger, the co-president of the National Women鈥檚 Law Center, based in Washington.
But the Birmingham district argues in its Supreme Court brief that 鈥渂eing punished for speaking out on an issue regarding sex is not the same as being discriminated against on the basis of one鈥檚 sex, particularly where the complainer鈥檚 sex is not at issue.鈥�
That argument is seconded by the state of Alabama in a brief joined by eight other states. 鈥淎ssuming the truth of the facts stated in the complaint, what happened to Jackson was wrong; it was unjustified鈥攂ut it was not 鈥榙iscrimination,鈥� 鈥� it says.
Furthermore, Congress has expressly prohibited retaliation in other anti-discrimination statutes, the states鈥� brief says, and could have done the same with Title IX if it had so desired. Mr. Jackson is wrongly trying to push the high court to go beyond its own precedents in two important ways, the brief adds, 鈥渂y expanding the scope of Title IX鈥檚 implied right of action from core discrimination to include retaliation claims 鈥� [and] by extending the class of plaintiffs who may sue on that cause of action beyond direct victims who are Title IX鈥檚 鈥榰nmistakable focus.鈥� 鈥�
鈥楾he Right Thing鈥�
If the high court agrees with Mr. Jackson, school districts could be faced with a torrent of costly lawsuits, argues the NSBA in a friend-of-the-court brief.
The NSBA argues that a win for Mr. Jackson would not only spur more Title IX cases, but also would encourage more employees to 鈥渄on the mantle of champion鈥� of all manner of protected groups.
Yet in its own brief, the NEA argues that teachers and coaches can often spot illegal discrimination better than the students who are victimized by it.
Educators鈥� careers are often entwined with the success of school programs, and they are well acquainted with how they operate, the brief says. Students, by contrast, are only passing through and may feel they have little to gain by complaining, says the brief, which was joined by various coaches鈥� organizations and the Washington-based American Association of University Professors.
Educators are particularly valuable in bringing sexual harassment to light, the brief contends, given the reluctance of victims to report such mistreatment.
But the NSBA counters that parents are quick to pounce if their children are shortchanged, and that 鈥渃hildren are more than able to voice their perceptions of unfair treatment from an early age.鈥�
鈥淐hildren do not need to know detailed information about the differences in budget allocations between similarly situated teams to recognize that their school has stuck them with lousy uniforms, inadequate practice facilities, and a third-rate coach,鈥� the NSBA brief says.
Back in Birmingham, a new principal has come to Ensley High since Mr. Jackson鈥檚 firing as coach 3陆 years ago, and the district鈥檚 superintendency and school board have changed hands. Amid that turnover, officials tapped Mr. Jackson in the fall of 2003 to coach the girls鈥� basketball team once again, albeit in an acting capacity.
As he prepares for the upcoming season, Mr. Jackson says one of his former players recently remarked in the grocery store that she was proud that he had 鈥渟tood up for the girls.鈥�
鈥淭hat really told me it was the right thing to do,鈥� he said.
