02-18-2026
A custodian at Rutgers University alleged that her coworker, J.M., physically assaulted her and subjected her to repeated sexual harassment. The accuser made a Title IX complaint. Rutgers investigated, held a live hearing at which both employees spoke, and issued a detailed report. Based on the information gathered, the university’s decision-makers found J.M. violated its policies and terminated his employment for cause. J.M. appealed, and his union challenged the firing under its collective negotiation agreement (CNA), which included a four-step grievance process culminating in arbitration. Under the CNA, the victim had no right to participate in any aspect of the arbitration process. Rutgers denied J.M.’s appeal, asserting that the union process conflicted with Title IX.
The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with Rutgers, holding that there was a fatal conflict between Title IX, which requires equal procedural rights for complainants and respondents, and the CNA arbitration, which did not allow the accuser to participate. Thus, Title IX pre-empted the CNA, making it unenforceable in this situation.
Takeaways: The New Jersey Supreme Court’s holding is specific to the facts of this case and does not establish precedent nationwide. However, schools and higher education institutions should evaluate whether elements of their employees’ collective agreements conflict with Title IX’s procedural requirements. Where employment matters implicate Title IX rights, both parties are entitled to participate throughout the process.