Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02584/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02584-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Madison Power, a minor, by and through

Kelly and Lisa Power, her parents and

guardians, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Gilbert Public Schools, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2584-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The Court’s Order of May 16, 2008, among other things, dismissed Plaintiff’s §1983

claims for violation of her equal protection rights. (Doc. #34, p. 6). The Court held that Title

IX preempted Plaintiff’s equal protection claims against the school officials and the school

district for gender discrimination. The United States Supreme Court has since held that Title

IX does not preempt §1983 claims for Equal Protection Clause violations. Fitzgerald v.

Barnstable School Comm., ___ U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 788, 797 (2009)(“Accordingly, we hold

that §1983 suits based on the Equal Protection Clause remain available to plaintiffs alleging

unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.”). 

In light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fitzgerald, on January 27, 2009, the Court

Case 2:07-cv-02584-JAT Document 75 Filed 03/31/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

invited Plaintiff to file a motion to reconsider the Court’s earlier Order. (Doc. #65). Plaintiff

filed her Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #68) on February 27, 2009. Plaintiff asks that

the Court reconsider its ruling that Title IX preempts Equal Protection claims under §1983.

Defendants filed a response, but do not disagree with Plaintiff that that portion of the Court’s

earlier Order is incorrect. Because of the Supreme Court’s intervening holding in Fitzgerald,

the Court will grant the motion to reconsider to the extent requested.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #68) to

the limited extent that the Court reverses its earlier holding regarding her §1983 Equal

Protection claims. Plaintiff’s §1983 Equal Protection claims are not preempted by Title IX

and therefore should not be dismissed. 

DATED this 30th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02584-JAT Document 75 Filed 03/31/09 Page 2 of 2