Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by recipients of federal education funding, and the Supreme Court held in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005), that the statute provides a private right of action to remedy retaliation by a funding recipient against an individual who has complained about sex discrimination. The cause of action for unlawful retaliation requires a showing that (1) the plaintiff participated in activity protected by Title IX; (2) the university took adverse employment action against him; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.

Claude Cummings was the women’s basketball coach at Texas Southern University (TSU). He had complained to the new interim athletic director, with specific details, that TSU had been violating Title IX by treating the men’s basketball program more favorably than the women’s program. Just one week later, in February 2008, Cummings was terminated.
Cummings had been hired in 2003 as head coach for the women’s basketball team. The team won 10 games and lost 17 in his first year, but then won only 5 games during each of the next 3 seasons. In his final season, the team won 8 games and lost 16. The academic record of the players in the women’s basketball program was also subpar while Cummings was head coach; each year an NCAA academic performance rating for the team fell below the median for teams in TSU’s division.
Cummings sued TSU for unlawful Title IX retaliation. Should this case be resolved by a motion for summary judgment, or should the case proceed to a trial before a jury where the jury can consider if his termination one week after his complaint about TSU’s violation of Title IX was retaliatory? [Cummings v. Texas Southern University, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 49181 (S.D. Tex., 2011)].