Mark Charlton-Perkins v. Univ. of Cincinnati -Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the University of Cincinnati and two administrators, holding that Title IX protects only persons physically "in the United States," so the plaintiff—who resided in the U.K. when the alleged discrimination occurred—could not invoke the statute. The court also ruled that sovereign immunity barred the requested instatement remedy and that the administrators were entitled to qualified immunity, thereby affirming the district court on all claims.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether Title IX creates a private cause of action for employment-discrimination claims brought by employees of federally-funded educational institutions.
Circuit Positions
Title IX provides a private cause of action for employees alleging sex-based employment discrimination.
Title IX does NOT provide such a cause of action; employees must proceed, if at all, under Title VII.
Sixth Circuit in the present opinion declines to reach the issue because the claim fails on other grounds, but prior Sixth Circuit precedent (e.g., Ivan v. Kent State Univ.) recognizes an employee cause of action; therefore the Sixth Circuit remains aligned with the circuits recognizing the cause of action.
Conflict Summary
Several circuits allow employees to sue their educational employers directly under Title IX for sex-based employment discrimination, reasoning that the statute contains an implied cause of action that is not limited to students. Other circuits hold that Title VII is the exclusive federal remedy for employment discrimination and that Title IX’s private right of action does not extend to employees.