Title IX protects only persons physically present in the United States, preventing a U.S. citizen living abroad from pursuing a claim based on alleged discrimination that occurred while he resided outside the country.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for a public university and two administrators in an employment dispute involving an unsuccessful applicant for an assistant professor position.
The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen living in the United Kingdom, applied for a faculty position at the university. Although a faculty panel recommended him for the job, the university ultimately canceled the search following concerns involving his gender and an alleged conflict of interest. The plaintiff sued, asserting Title IX and equal protection claims.
On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of the Title IX claim on grounds different from those relied upon by the U.S. District Court. The appellate court held that the plaintiff was not a “person in the United States” within the meaning of Title IX when the alleged discrimination occurred and when he learned about it.
The question of whether a U.S. citizen living abroad is protected by Title IX was an issue of first impression for the 6th Circuit. Looking to the statutory language and U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting similar language, the court concluded that being “in the United States” refers to a person’s physical presence within U.S. territory rather than citizenship.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s U.S. citizenship did not bring him within Title IX’s protections while he was living in the United Kingdom. Because he was outside the United States when the challenged employment decision occurred, his Title IX claim could not proceed.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s equal protection claims against university officials. It concluded that sovereign immunity barred the official-capacity claims, including the requested equitable relief of instatement, and that qualified immunity prevented the remaining claims against the officials.
The court therefore affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims.
The 32-page opinion is Charlton-Perkins v. University of Cincinnati, Lawyers Weekly No. 01-111004.
