Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Title IX Lawsuit

Aired December 01, 2004 - 07:33   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The landmark Title IX legislation leveled the playing field for women's sports. It's been more than 30 years now.
But does the law protect a male coach who defends his female athletes and says he was fired for doing just that?

Roderick Jackson took his case the Supreme Court yesterday, claiming he was fired by the Birmingham, Alabama School Board for complaining about discrimination on the girls' basketball team he coached.

We'll hear from the school board side in just a moment. But first, Roderick Jackson live now from Birmingham, his lawyer, Marcia Greenberger, live from Washington.

Good to have you both with us.

Mr. Jackson, let me just begin with you. Is there another way that you can go about this? In other words, could this be something where you could say you're a whistleblower as opposed to something that is protected under Title IX, which is all about gender bias?

RODERICK JACKSON, SUING SCHOOL BOARD UNDER TITLE IX: No, sir. This was a Title IX case, because it involved sex discrimination against the young ladies at the high school that I represented.

M. O'BRIEN: And give us a sense of what kind of discrimination you observed and what you said about it.

JACKSON: Well, the girls were forced to practice in the old, shabby gym with the floors not polished. The back boards were wooden. The rims were bent and not collapsible and not regulation-length. That was just one of the many things, including no access to the expense accounts to allow the girls to pay for their buses and officials. And...

M. O'BRIEN: And all of this, when you compare it to the boys' team, big difference?

JACKSON: Yes, sir. Well, the boys practiced in the regulation gym, and we just thought we should rotate it. You know, no one should get exclusive use of the gym. We thought that we should take turns, make a schedule and that kind of thing. But no one wanted to hear that.

M. O'BRIEN: And then ultimately you were fired. Now, you're back on the job now, correct, just to clarify it, right?

JACKSON: Yes, sir. With the election of a new elected school board and a new school administration, we interviewed for the position and received the interim coaching position at Ensley (ph).

M. O'BRIEN: All right. So, Ms. Greenberg, this is about the interim period, the back pay and so forth. In your mind, is this a clear case that involves gender bias? Or is this somebody who has been singled out for being a whistleblower, which would be a different set of laws?

MARCIA GREENBERGER, RODERICK JACKSON'S LAWYER: Well, actually it is a clear case of gender bias. And the whistleblower laws don't really apply in this instance at all. Every single anti- discrimination law for decades, for over 40 years, has said that a part and parcel of the protection against discrimination is also the protection against retaliating against someone because they've been complaining about discrimination.

(CROSSTALK)

M. O'BRIEN: But it doesn't -- Title IX doesn't clearly state that, though, does it?

GREENBERGER: Well, Title IX has a general broad-based prohibition against discrimination. It doesn't list the kinds of discrimination or the specific practices that are involved. And that's been true for many anti-discrimination laws over the years. Some do specifically say it includes retaliation. Those are the kinds of laws that often describe the types of discrimination that are being prohibited.

Title IX just says no discrimination in or under or for those who participate in programs or activities that receive federal funds. And that's modeled on Title VI, a law that was passed in 1964 that prohibits race or national origin discrimination, using the same exact wording.

The government, since the '60s has said that part of that protection is against those who are retaliated against. The government in 1975, when Title IX regulations were issued, said same thing for Title IX.

The law for all of these anti-discrimination laws, however they're worded, for constitutional equal protection purposes, for statutory protection purposes, has always been interpreted to protect against those who complain about illegal discrimination.

M. O'BRIEN: All right.

GREENBERGER: And obviously we know why, because if people like Coach Jackson were allowed to be punished when they stepped forward, our laws wouldn't be worth the paper that they're written on.

M. O'BRIEN: All right. Let's turn it now over to the other side. Ms. Greenberg and Mr. Jackson, thank you very much. We'll turn it over now to Naomi Gittins. She is the attorney who has filed a supporting case, a friend of the court brief, for the Birmingham, Alabama School Board. She joins us now from Washington.

Ms. Gittins, I guess the question is: How broad is Title IX in your view?

NAOMI GITTINS, SR. STAFF ATTY., NATL. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN.: Well, Title IX does say that school districts can't discriminate against people on the basis of sex. And so it all comes down to what does on the basis of sex really mean?

Well, Congress clearly was trying to protect girls and women and to give them equal opportunities and educational programs. They weren't thinking about people who might stand up and say, these people have been discriminated against. They were thinking of girls and women and not people like Mr. Jackson.

M. O'BRIEN: So you would go for a fairly narrow interpretation here. And just to be clear, you don't dispute the fact that his team was not treated as well as the boys' team at that school.

GITTINS: Well, those are the allegations that he made. And it's important to remember that there has been no factual determination as to whether the team actually was discriminated against under Title IX, or whether he actually was retaliated against. The courts have assumed that in order to decide the issue.

M. O'BRIEN: All right. So the court, in general, the Supreme Court, the Rehnquist court, generally takes a narrow view of such matters. What's your take on it?

GITTINS: That's correct. What they've said is that the most important thing in determining a statute that doesn't clearly say one way or another is to look at congressional intent. Well, there is nothing that really says that Congress intended to protect people other than girls and women who were being discriminated against on the basis of their gender.

In this case, if you want to say that Mr. Jackson was discriminated against, he was discriminated against on the basis of speaking up. And contrary to what he said, he seemed to suggest that Title IX was his only avenue for relief. Well, that isn't exactly correct. He could have, for instance, brought a claim under the First Amendment. The court...

M. O'BRIEN: All right. Just a final thought, though, because I just want to get the sense of, taking aside the legalities here and whether it's the First Amendment or Title IX, was he treated fairly?

GITTINS: Again, that's something that is for a court to determine. And I suppose if the Supreme Court agrees that he does have a right to sue under Title IX, then that's something the courts will determine at later point.

M O'BRIEN: Naomi Gittens, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Marcia Greenberger and Roderick Jackson. We'll be following that story for you. Thank you for your time.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.


Aired December 1, 2004 - 07:33   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The landmark Title IX legislation leveled the playing field for women's sports. It's been more than 30 years now.
But does the law protect a male coach who defends his female athletes and says he was fired for doing just that?

Roderick Jackson took his case the Supreme Court yesterday, claiming he was fired by the Birmingham, Alabama School Board for complaining about discrimination on the girls' basketball team he coached.

We'll hear from the school board side in just a moment. But first, Roderick Jackson live now from Birmingham, his lawyer, Marcia Greenberger, live from Washington.

Good to have you both with us.

Mr. Jackson, let me just begin with you. Is there another way that you can go about this? In other words, could this be something where you could say you're a whistleblower as opposed to something that is protected under Title IX, which is all about gender bias?

RODERICK JACKSON, SUING SCHOOL BOARD UNDER TITLE IX: No, sir. This was a Title IX case, because it involved sex discrimination against the young ladies at the high school that I represented.

M. O'BRIEN: And give us a sense of what kind of discrimination you observed and what you said about it.

JACKSON: Well, the girls were forced to practice in the old, shabby gym with the floors not polished. The back boards were wooden. The rims were bent and not collapsible and not regulation-length. That was just one of the many things, including no access to the expense accounts to allow the girls to pay for their buses and officials. And...

M. O'BRIEN: And all of this, when you compare it to the boys' team, big difference?

JACKSON: Yes, sir. Well, the boys practiced in the regulation gym, and we just thought we should rotate it. You know, no one should get exclusive use of the gym. We thought that we should take turns, make a schedule and that kind of thing. But no one wanted to hear that.

M. O'BRIEN: And then ultimately you were fired. Now, you're back on the job now, correct, just to clarify it, right?

JACKSON: Yes, sir. With the election of a new elected school board and a new school administration, we interviewed for the position and received the interim coaching position at Ensley (ph).

M. O'BRIEN: All right. So, Ms. Greenberg, this is about the interim period, the back pay and so forth. In your mind, is this a clear case that involves gender bias? Or is this somebody who has been singled out for being a whistleblower, which would be a different set of laws?

MARCIA GREENBERGER, RODERICK JACKSON'S LAWYER: Well, actually it is a clear case of gender bias. And the whistleblower laws don't really apply in this instance at all. Every single anti- discrimination law for decades, for over 40 years, has said that a part and parcel of the protection against discrimination is also the protection against retaliating against someone because they've been complaining about discrimination.

(CROSSTALK)

M. O'BRIEN: But it doesn't -- Title IX doesn't clearly state that, though, does it?

GREENBERGER: Well, Title IX has a general broad-based prohibition against discrimination. It doesn't list the kinds of discrimination or the specific practices that are involved. And that's been true for many anti-discrimination laws over the years. Some do specifically say it includes retaliation. Those are the kinds of laws that often describe the types of discrimination that are being prohibited.

Title IX just says no discrimination in or under or for those who participate in programs or activities that receive federal funds. And that's modeled on Title VI, a law that was passed in 1964 that prohibits race or national origin discrimination, using the same exact wording.

The government, since the '60s has said that part of that protection is against those who are retaliated against. The government in 1975, when Title IX regulations were issued, said same thing for Title IX.

The law for all of these anti-discrimination laws, however they're worded, for constitutional equal protection purposes, for statutory protection purposes, has always been interpreted to protect against those who complain about illegal discrimination.

M. O'BRIEN: All right.

GREENBERGER: And obviously we know why, because if people like Coach Jackson were allowed to be punished when they stepped forward, our laws wouldn't be worth the paper that they're written on.

M. O'BRIEN: All right. Let's turn it now over to the other side. Ms. Greenberg and Mr. Jackson, thank you very much. We'll turn it over now to Naomi Gittins. She is the attorney who has filed a supporting case, a friend of the court brief, for the Birmingham, Alabama School Board. She joins us now from Washington.

Ms. Gittins, I guess the question is: How broad is Title IX in your view?

NAOMI GITTINS, SR. STAFF ATTY., NATL. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN.: Well, Title IX does say that school districts can't discriminate against people on the basis of sex. And so it all comes down to what does on the basis of sex really mean?

Well, Congress clearly was trying to protect girls and women and to give them equal opportunities and educational programs. They weren't thinking about people who might stand up and say, these people have been discriminated against. They were thinking of girls and women and not people like Mr. Jackson.

M. O'BRIEN: So you would go for a fairly narrow interpretation here. And just to be clear, you don't dispute the fact that his team was not treated as well as the boys' team at that school.

GITTINS: Well, those are the allegations that he made. And it's important to remember that there has been no factual determination as to whether the team actually was discriminated against under Title IX, or whether he actually was retaliated against. The courts have assumed that in order to decide the issue.

M. O'BRIEN: All right. So the court, in general, the Supreme Court, the Rehnquist court, generally takes a narrow view of such matters. What's your take on it?

GITTINS: That's correct. What they've said is that the most important thing in determining a statute that doesn't clearly say one way or another is to look at congressional intent. Well, there is nothing that really says that Congress intended to protect people other than girls and women who were being discriminated against on the basis of their gender.

In this case, if you want to say that Mr. Jackson was discriminated against, he was discriminated against on the basis of speaking up. And contrary to what he said, he seemed to suggest that Title IX was his only avenue for relief. Well, that isn't exactly correct. He could have, for instance, brought a claim under the First Amendment. The court...

M. O'BRIEN: All right. Just a final thought, though, because I just want to get the sense of, taking aside the legalities here and whether it's the First Amendment or Title IX, was he treated fairly?

GITTINS: Again, that's something that is for a court to determine. And I suppose if the Supreme Court agrees that he does have a right to sue under Title IX, then that's something the courts will determine at later point.

M O'BRIEN: Naomi Gittens, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Marcia Greenberger and Roderick Jackson. We'll be following that story for you. Thank you for your time.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.