Cannon v. University of Chicago
| Cannon v. University of Chicago | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 9, 1979 Decided May 14, 1979 |
|
| Full case name | Geraldine G. Cannon v. University of Chicago, et al. |
| Citations | 441 U.S. 677 (more)
99 S. Ct. 1946; 60 L. Ed. 2d 560; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 36; 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9202
|
| Prior history | 406 F. Supp. 1257 (N.D. Ill.), aff'd, 559 F.2d 1063 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. granted, 438 U.S. 914 (1978) |
| Subsequent history | On remand to 605 F.2d 560 (7th Cir. 1979), appeal after remand, 648 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir.), mandamus denied sub nom. In re Cannon, 454 U.S. 811, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 (1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1013 (1983) |
| Holding | |
| Title IX of the Higher Education Act contains an implied private cause of action. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Burger |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | White, joined by Blackmun |
| Dissent | Powell |
| Laws applied | |
| 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1683 | |
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.
Plaintiff 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. The University of Chicago claimed that 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 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).
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 HEW?
...
Wikipedia