The Ohio State University v. Steve Snyder-Hill, et al.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX does not express a private right of action, but in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), this Court implied one. Because Title IX lacks an express right of action, it does not specify a statute of limitations. As a result, the length of the limitations period is governed by analogous state law, whereas the date on which the limitations period begins to run—i.e., when the Title IX claim “accrue[s]”—“is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387-88 (2007). In the decision below, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit—in conflict with the decisions of other circuits—devised an extreme new “discovery rule” for Title IX that permitted respondents to assert Title IX claims based on conduct that occurred more than 20 to 40 years before they filed suit. The court also interpreted Title IX’s private right of action to extend beyond current or prospective students or employees to essentially anyone who steps foot on a college campus. The questions presented are:

1. Whether, or to what extent, a Title IX claim accrues after the date on which the alleged injury occurred.

2. Whether, or to what extent, Title IX’s implied private right of action extends to individuals who are not current or prospective students or employees.