Case Study : Grove City College

1335 WordsFeb 17, 20176 Pages
1. Parties: Grove City College, individually and on behalf of its students; Marianne Sickafuse; Kenneth J. Hockenberry; Jennifer S. Smith and Victor E. Vouga v. Terrel Bell, Secretary of Education 2. Court Where Decided: Supreme Court of the United States 3. Cause of Action Causes of action in this case included: discrimination, gender & sex discrimination and Title IX compliance. 4. Location of the Case Official: 465 U.S. 555 (1984) Unofficial: 104 S. Ct. 1211; 79 L. Ed. 2d 516; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 158; 52 U.S.L.W. 4283; 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34,158 5. Date Decided: This case was decided on February, 28th 1984. 6. Facts of the Case: Grove City College, a private, coeducational liberal arts school, wanted to preserve its…show more content…
From the College’s viewpoint, the case was about an important principle: refusal to agree to federal entanglement and regulation and not about any intent on the part of the College to allow discrimination. Consequently, the college challenged the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’s actions. An administrative judge found that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) had a sufficient basis on which to stop awarding Basic Educational Opportunity Grants to students at the college. Grove City College, along with a number of students, filed suit in a federal trial court in Pennsylvania that claimed the HEW could not terminate the BEOGs. Before moving to the Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, appealed in favor of the HEW. 7. Issue(s) Raised: • Private institutions of higher education being subjected to federal requirements despite receiving no direct federal funding • Federal financial funding, more specifically Basic Educational Opportunity Grants, and their ties to government regulations • Compliance with Title IX and First Amendment rights violations 8. Summary of the rationale used by the Court: Determining whether federal funding mattered was at the heart of the Supreme Court decision. Receiving federal funding, and
Open Document