The New Jersey Supreme Court held that federal Title IX regulations preempt union collective bargaining agreements when it comes to sexual harassment grievance procedures, resolving a conflict between federal education law and labor rights.

The unanimous decision, written by Justice Fasciale and decided Jan. 29, 2026, stemmed from a dispute between Rutgers University and AFSCME Local 888 over the termination of employee J.M. following a Title IX investigation.

The case began in February 2022 when a custodian identified as "Jane" filed a sexual harassment complaint against her co-worker J.M. under Rutgers' Title IX policy. As a recipient of federal education funding, Rutgers is required to comply with Title IX regulations addressing sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

Following an investigation and hearing conducted under Rutgers' Title IX procedures, decision-makers determined that J.M. violated two provisions of the university's Title IX policy. The panel concluded that just cause existed for terminating his employment, a determination that was upheld on appeal through the Title IX process.

However, Local 888 sought to challenge the termination through a separate grievance procedure established in the union's 2019 collective negotiation agreement with Rutgers. The union filed a grievance requesting a meeting to determine whether J.M. was terminated for just cause under the labor contract's provisions.

Rutgers denied the meeting request, arguing that the federal Title IX regulations preempt the union contract's grievance procedure. The university maintained that allowing parallel proceedings would conflict with the comprehensive framework established by the Department of Education's 2020 Title IX regulations.

Local 888 escalated the matter by submitting a request for arbitration to the Public Employment Relations Commission, asserting that Rutgers violated Article 4 of the collective negotiation agreement by refusing to participate in the grievance process.

Rutgers asked PERC to restrain arbitration, arguing that the Title IX regulations preempted any review of disciplinary sanctions under the union contract. However, PERC denied Rutgers' request and ruled that the Title IX regulations did not preempt the arbitration, applying state preemption law principles.

The case then moved through the court system, with the Appellate Division affirming PERC's decision. Rutgers appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which granted certification to resolve the preemption question.

The dispute highlighted a growing tension between federal civil rights enforcement mechanisms and traditional labor protections. Title IX regulations, promulgated by the Department of Education in May 2020, established specific procedures for investigating and adjudicating sexual harassment complaints in educational settings.

These federal regulations require covered institutions to adopt grievance procedures that include specific elements such as trained decision-makers, the right to an advisor, and particular evidentiary standards. The regulations aim to ensure prompt and equitable resolution of sexual harassment complaints while protecting due process rights for all parties.

Union representatives argued that collective bargaining agreements provide important protections for workers facing disciplinary action, including the right to representation and review by neutral arbitrators. They contended that allowing Title IX procedures to completely bypass union grievance rights would undermine fundamental labor protections.

Rutgers, supported by other educational institutions, argued that dual proceedings would create inefficiencies and potential conflicts. The university maintained that the comprehensive nature of Title IX regulations demonstrated Congress's intent to establish a uniform federal framework for addressing sexual harassment in educational settings.

The court's holding that the collective negotiation agreement's grievance procedure conflicts with and is preempted by Title IX regulations resolves uncertainty that had developed in New Jersey law. The decision provides clarity for other public universities and unions operating under similar agreements.

The ruling affects how educational institutions handle sexual harassment cases involving unionized employees. While employees retain protections under Title IX procedures, they cannot simultaneously pursue grievances through union contracts that might conflict with federal requirements.

Legal experts note that the decision reflects broader questions about federal preemption in areas where civil rights enforcement intersects with labor law. Similar issues have emerged in other states as institutions navigate compliance with both federal civil rights mandates and collective bargaining obligations.

The unanimous nature of the decision suggests the court viewed the preemption question as legally straightforward, despite the competing policy interests at stake. The ruling is likely to influence how other state courts address similar conflicts between Title IX and union rights.

For higher education institutions, the decision clarifies that Title IX compliance takes precedence over potentially conflicting union grievance procedures. This may require universities to work more closely with unions to ensure collective bargaining agreements align with federal requirements.

The case also demonstrates the continuing evolution of Title IX jurisprudence as courts interpret the scope and application of the 2020 regulations in various contexts involving educational institutions and their employees.