Supreme Court Upholds State Authority to Define Women’s Sports Teams by Biological Sex Under Title IX: Key Implications for Employers

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., No. 24-43, together with Little v. Hecox, No. 24-38, holding that Title IX allows schools to maintain women’s and girls’ sports teams for biological females and that the challenged state laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Although this is a Title IX athletics decision—not a Title VII employment ruling—it raises important questions for employers, particularly educational institutions, regarding the intersection of student-athlete eligibility policies and employment obligations.

This alert highlights key takeaways from the decision and outlines what employers should consider doing now.

What Employers Need to Know

• The Supreme Court held that Title IX permits schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and the Ninth Circuit in Little v. Hecox.
• The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, expressly distinguished Bostock v. Clayton County, emphasizing that Title VII concerns employment and generally requires men and women to be treated without regard to sex, whereas Title IX authorizes sex-separated sports teams in a fundamentally different factual context.
• The decision does not overrule Bostock or eliminate Title VII protections for employees based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Employers should not read this decision as authorizing employment decisions based on gender identity or transgender status.
• Educational institutions and other employers now face a split compliance environment: Title IX and state athletics laws may permit or require sex-based eligibility rules for student sports, while Title VII, state and local employment laws, and institutional policies continue to protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Employers—especially schools, colleges, universities, and public employers—should review their policies and coordinate among Title IX, HR, athletics, and legal teams to ensure student-athlete policies do not inadvertently create inconsistent employment practices.

Background

Over the past six years, 27 states have enacted laws maintaining female sports teams for biological females. The two cases before the Court involved:

• West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act (2021), which prohibits male students from playing on female sports teams, specifies that sex is determined by biology, and includes legislative findings that the prohibition is necessary to promote equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. B.P.J., who identifies as female, sought to participate on the girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams. The district court granted summary judgment for the state; the Fourth Circuit reversed on Title IX grounds.
• Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (2020), which similarly prohibits male students from participating on female sports teams, defines sex by biology, and declares that sex-specific teams further equality by providing opportunities for female athletes.

Both laws were challenged on Title IX and Equal Protection Clause grounds. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases for decision.

What the Court Held

In an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, joined by a majority of the Court, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court held that:

• Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex.
• West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by maintaining female sports for biological females.

Critically for employers, the majority expressly distinguished Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). The Court stated that Title VII concerns employment, whereas Title IX as relevant here focuses on sports; the factual contexts are “vastly different”; the statutes are “vastly different”; in the workplace, Title VII generally requires men and women to be treated without regard to sex; and in the sports context, Title IX authorizes separate men’s and women’s sports teams. The majority emphasized that the question whether schools may limit women’s and girls’ sports to biological females was not addressed by Bostock, noting that the Bostock Court had expressly stated that it did not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or “anything else of that kind.”

Employment Law Implications

Although West Virginia v. B.P.J. is a Title IX/school athletics decision, it has meaningful implications for employers:

Bostock Remains Good Law for Employment. The decision should not be read as overruling Bostock or eliminating Title VII protections for employees based on sexual orientation, transgender status, sex stereotypes, or gender identity. Bostock held that an employer that fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII—that holding remains intact.

Religious entities should separately evaluate whether statutory or constitutional exemptions may affect a particular employment decision. Title VII permits qualifying religious organizations to prefer co-religionists in employment and to require employees to abide by religion-based behavioral expectations. Moreover, the First Amendment’s ministerial exception may bar certain employment-discrimination claims by employees who perform ministerial or essentially religious functions. These doctrines are fact-specific and should not be treated as blanket exemptions from all employment-law obligations.

Split Compliance Environment. Employers—especially educational institutions, public employers, and federal contractors—may now face a complex compliance landscape. Title IX and state athletics rules may allow or require sex-separated athletics based on biological sex, while Title VII, state and local employment nondiscrimination laws, institutional policies, collective bargaining agreements, and contractual commitments may continue to protect transgender faculty, staff, coaches, and applicants in the employment context.

Workplace Protections Continue. For workplace issues—including hiring, firing, promotion, discipline, compensation, harassment, employee benefits, facilities access, dress codes, names and pronouns, leave, and accommodations—employers should continue analyzing obligations under Title VII, applicable state and local laws, and any sector-specific regulations.

Educational Employer Coordination. Educational employers should ensure that student-athlete eligibility policies do not inadvertently create inconsistent statements or practices affecting coaches, trainers, athletic department staff, teachers, faculty, or administrators. Coordination among Title IX offices, HR departments, athletics departments, student affairs, and communications teams is essential.

Risk Areas. Potential risk areas include: employee complaints or retaliation claims tied to advocacy regarding student-athlete participation; accommodations or facility access for faculty and staff; harassment allegations in the athletics context; and conflicts between state mandates and internal nondiscrimination policies.

What Employers Should Consider Doing Now

• Review and update employee handbooks and nondiscrimination policies to ensure they remain consistent with Title VII, applicable state and local laws, and institutional commitments—without inadvertently incorporating the Title IX athletics analysis into employment policies.
• Coordinate among Title IX, HR, athletics, legal, student affairs, and communications functions to ensure student-athlete eligibility policies do not create conflicting messages or practices for employees.
• Update manager and supervisor training to address the distinction between the Title IX athletics decision and ongoing Title VII employment protections.
• Audit athletics/HR protocols for potential conflicts between state laws regarding student-athlete eligibility and employment nondiscrimination obligations for coaches, staff, and faculty.
• Avoid categorical public statements about what the decision means outside the school athletics context. Consult legal counsel before making any changes to employment policies based on this decision.
• Monitor further judicial and regulatory developments, as additional litigation and regulatory guidance may follow.

For questions about the decision, please contact your Quarles attorney or:

• Edward Hollis: 317-399-2834 / edward.hollis@quarles.com