Plaintiff John Doe sued Defendants Rocky Mountain Classical Academy (RMCA), Nicole Blanc, and Cullen McDowell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, raising claims of sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, as well as retaliation under Title IX. The district court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
John Doe, a kindergarten student at RMCA, wore small, blue stud earrings to school, which violated RMCA’s dress code prohibiting boys from wearing earrings. After Doe’s mother suggested that the dress code constituted unlawful sex discrimination, RMCA suspended and disenrolled Doe for continuing to wear earrings. Doe sued Defendants, alleging that RMCA violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights and statutory rights under Title IX, and that RMCA retaliated against him for complaining of sex discrimination.
Legal Analysis
I. Equal Protection Claim: The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Doe’s equal protection claim, holding that the district court erred by applying the “comparable burdens” test instead of the established intermediate scrutiny framework for evaluating sex-based classifications. The court concluded that Doe stated a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted because RMCA had not provided an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for its sex-based classification or shown that the classification served important governmental objectives through substantially related means.
II. Title IX Sex Discrimination Claim: The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Doe’s Title IX sex discrimination claim for the same reasons it reversed the dismissal of the equal protection claim, as the parties agreed that the same analysis applied to both claims.
III. Title IX Retaliation Claim: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Doe’s Title IX retaliation claim, agreeing with the district court that Doe’s complaint permitted only one inference: that RMCA took disciplinary actions because of Doe’s dress code violations, not because he complained of sex discrimination.
The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Doe’s sex discrimination claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the dismissal of Doe’s Title IX retaliation claim.
Schrag on Law 