Discrimination Suit

A federal render dismissed two of the charges, referring to a recent U.S. Supreme courtyard case where an individual was not allowed to sue under statute title VI, which is a similar statute, and said the ruling also apply to agnomen IX (Jones). The judge verbalised that individuals do not have a right to enforce the anti-retaliation regulation involving style IX. The suits were also dismissed for a failure to state a cause of action, the legal reasoning for her lawsuit. The judge dismissed the good luck of contract claims and the Title IX claim, and the federal ride discrepancy charge with respect to Rothkopf. Although the college raised several time-sensitive te

chnicalities, the judge did not dismiss the state sex discrimination charges, so these suits remain at both the state and federal level.

The state sex discrimination charge is a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA), and the claim against Rothkopf is for "aiding and abetting". The federal sex discrimination charge is based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is still pending.

The article notes that in 1996, Atkinson proposed changes within the school's athletic program, dealing specifically with Title IX and other gender equality issues, which were very controversial. The proposals were not well-received, and she was physically threatened by her supervisor.
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.