The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in publicly funded educational institutions, overrides a labor contract grievance procedure between Rutgers University and AFSCME Local 888. The decision, issued on January 29, 2026, reverses a lower court’s order that required Rutgers to arbitrate the grievance of an employee terminated after a Title IX complaint.
The case involved a custodial employee at Rutgers who was dismissed following an investigation under the university’s Title IX policy. The union challenged the termination through its collective negotiation agreement (CNA), which included a four-step grievance process ending in binding arbitration. However, Rutgers argued that this process conflicted with Title IX because it only allowed appeal rights for the disciplined employee and the union—not for the complainant.
According to the court’s opinion, “Title IX mandates that all grievance and appeal procedures apply equally to complainants and respondents.” The court found that “the CNA created an appeal path for J.M. that was not equally available to Jane, violating 34 C.F.R. §106.45(b).” It also noted that “arbitration under the CNA could result in a determination inconsistent with the Title IX process, undermining federal mandates for equal appeal and grievance procedures.”
The Supreme Court determined that allowing arbitration would undermine federal requirements by creating an avenue where only one party had participation rights. The ruling states: “Arbitration would constitute a collateral attack on Rutgers’s Title IX process, potentially creating an inconsistent result (such as an order to reinstate J.M.’s employment, contrary to the university’s Title IX decisionmaker) through a procedure in which the complainant had no right to participate.”
While this decision specifically applies to public universities like Rutgers and their labor contracts governed by state law, similar issues may arise at private universities covered by federal labor law. Both public and private institutions are advised to review their collective bargaining agreements for any post-disciplinary procedures related to Title IX discipline that do not provide equal rights for both parties involved.
Legal counsel at educational institutions are encouraged to assess whether current or future collective bargaining agreements comply with Title IX requirements or if renegotiation is necessary. They should also ensure any supplemental appeals or review mechanisms grant equal procedural rights to both complainants and respondents in Title IX matters.
Recent changes in federal regulations are relevant background: revised Title IX rules introduced in 2024 were blocked nationwide in January 2025, so existing cases continue under regulations from 2020.