Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)

Citation: Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Parent Document: Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-02-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065442/mansourian-v-regents-of-the-uni... ↗

Full Text

1,034 chars

[8] Consistent with the reasoning underlying Gebser, the
Supreme Court has made clear that no notice requirement is
applicable to Title IX claims that rest on an affirmative insti-
tutional decision. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education,
544 U.S. 167 (2005), held that a high school athletics coach
fired in retaliation for complaining about discrimination in
athletics funding had a private right of action under Title IX.
The Court held that no pre-litigation notice is required in the
retaliation context. In Gebser and Davis, the Court stated, “we
emphasized that [the notice] limitation on private damages
actions is not a bar to liability where a funding recipient inten-
tionally violates the statute.” Id. at 182 (quotation omitted).
As retaliation is “easily attributable to the funding recipient
and it is always — by definition — intentional,” id., the Court
allowed Jackson’s retaliation claim to proceed without regard
to whether adequate pre-litigation notice and opportunity to
cure the violation had been provided.

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text