Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/5

 The IFA also included a so-called “savings clause,” which states that the foregoing “may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.” § 1000.05(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2022). Thus, professors may “discuss” the eight concepts listed above in class, but they must do so “in an objective manner” and “without endorsement of the concepts.” Id.

The FEEA applies to public colleges and universities in Florida. See § 1000.05(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022). Any “person aggrieved by a violation” of the FEEA “has a right of action for such equitable relief as the court may determine.” § 1000.05(9), Fla. Stat. (2022).

The FEEA is patterned after Title IX, the chief federal antidiscrimination law in the education setting. ''Hawkins v. Sarasota Cnty. Sch. Bd.'', 322 F.3d 1279, 1286 (11th Cir. 2003). Title IX suits are available only against institutions. Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, 1169–70 (11th Cir. 2003). Though no Florida court has confronted the issue, the FEEA, together with the IFA’s definition of “discrimination,” appears to authorize suits against public educational