Cannon v. University of Chicago
Encyclopedia
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case which interpreted Congressional silence in the face of earlier interpretations of similar laws to determine that Title IX
of the Higher Education Act provides an implied cause of action
.
Geraldine Cannon sued the University of Chicago
, asserting that she was denied admission on the basis of her sex, and that she had a cause of action under Title IX, which bars sex discrimination by federally funded institutions, but does not expressly grant a private right of action. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed the case. The dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
, which held that the statutory procedure for termination of federal funds was the exclusive remedy provided by Congress.
One issue, buried in footnotes, would be of importance in the subsequent Alexander v. Sandoval
decision. Cannon was denied admission because the medical university admissions departments had a policy of not admitting applicants over thirty years of age, at least not without an advanced degree. Northwestern Medical School absolutely disqualified applicants over 35. Cannon was 39 years old at the time. The policy that had a disparate impact on women.
The plaintiff appealed, contending that Congress acted in light of similar language in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
, which the Supreme Court had already found to imply a private remedy, and to which Congress had allowed attorney fees (which would be unnecessary absent a private right of action).
?
, applied the four-part test set forth in Cort v. Ash
, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), used in order to determine whether Congress had meant for a law to be able to be privately enforced:
The court determined that all of the Cort factors pointed to an implied right of action:
The Court also recognized that while this new source of financial liability might affect universities badly, it was up to Congress to weigh that concern.
concerns. He called the Court's decision legislation, noting that Congress knew how to make judicial remedies, and saying that three of the four factors invited judicial lawmaking—only the second factor, he argued, was really about congressional intent. Powell contended that the Court's decision would encourage Congress to be lax in their duty to create laws, expecting democratically unaccountable judges to do the job for them.
Title IX
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a United States law, enacted on June 23, 1972, that amended Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2002 it was renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, in honor of its principal author Congresswoman Mink, but is most...
of the Higher Education Act provides an implied cause of action
Implied cause of action
Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law...
.
Facts
PlaintiffPlaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
Geraldine Cannon sued the University of Chicago
University of Chicago
The University of Chicago is a private research university in Chicago, Illinois, USA. It was founded by the American Baptist Education Society with a donation from oil magnate and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller and incorporated in 1890...
, asserting that she was denied admission on the basis of her sex, and that she had a cause of action under Title IX, which bars sex discrimination by federally funded institutions, but does not expressly grant a private right of action. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is the trial-level court with jurisdiction over the northern counties of Illinois....
dismissed the case. The dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the courts in the following districts:* Central District of Illinois* Northern District of Illinois...
, which held that the statutory procedure for termination of federal funds was the exclusive remedy provided by Congress.
One issue, buried in footnotes, would be of importance in the subsequent Alexander v. Sandoval
Alexander v. Sandoval
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact.-Background:In 1990 Alabama...
decision. Cannon was denied admission because the medical university admissions departments had a policy of not admitting applicants over thirty years of age, at least not without an advanced degree. Northwestern Medical School absolutely disqualified applicants over 35. Cannon was 39 years old at the time. The policy that had a disparate impact on women.
The plaintiff appealed, contending that Congress acted in light of similar language in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation...
, which the Supreme Court had already found to imply a private remedy, and to which Congress had allowed attorney fees (which would be unnecessary absent a private right of action).
Issue
Did Congress intend a private remedy to be implied from the Title IX? Are individuals allowed to sue under Title IX, or are they only allowed to participate in class-action suits by the HEWHew
Hew is a masculine given name, and may refer to the following:* Hew Dalrymple, Lord North Berwick , Scottish judge and politician* Hew Dalrymple Ross , British soldier* Hew Fraser , British field hockey player...
?
Holding
The Court, in an opinion by Justice StevensJohn Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
, applied the four-part test set forth in Cort v. Ash
Cort v. Ash
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined whether a court may imply a cause of action from a criminal statute.-Facts & procedural history:Defendant/petitioner Stewart S...
, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), used in order to determine whether Congress had meant for a law to be able to be privately enforced:
- Is the plaintiff a member of a special class for whose benefit the statute was enacted? (The court notes that this can not be used to imply a right of action that is merely a criminal statute that prohibits all persons from engaging in a general prohibited behavior).
- Does legislative historyLegislative historyLegislative history includes any of various materials generated in the course of creating legislation, such as committee reports, analysis by legislative counsel, committee hearings, floor debates, and histories of actions taken...
express a legislative intent to create or deny a private right of action? - Would creation of a private right of action frustrate legislative scheme, or is it in fact helpful to it?
- Does the right involve an area that historically has basically been of concern to the States?
The court determined that all of the Cort factors pointed to an implied right of action:
- Women are clearly in the special class protected by the statute, for the statute identifies persons who shall not be excluded.
- Title IX contained language which copied that of Title VI, for which a private cause of action had already been implied by the Fifth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitThe United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Louisiana* Middle District of Louisiana...
at the time Title IX was adopted; this was held to show legislative intent. - The remedy was necessary, or at least helpful to accomplishing one of Congress’ two purposes: avoiding federal support for discriminators and protecting individual citizens from discrimination. Private suits make this second purpose easier to implement.
- This question is not left to states because the federal government is primarily responsible for protecting against discriminationDiscriminationDiscrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be...
.
The Court also recognized that while this new source of financial liability might affect universities badly, it was up to Congress to weigh that concern.
Dissent
A dissenting opinion by Justice Powell raised separation of powersSeparation of powers
The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic...
concerns. He called the Court's decision legislation, noting that Congress knew how to make judicial remedies, and saying that three of the four factors invited judicial lawmaking—only the second factor, he argued, was really about congressional intent. Powell contended that the Court's decision would encourage Congress to be lax in their duty to create laws, expecting democratically unaccountable judges to do the job for them.