A federal judge from the District of Connecticut has handed Quinnipiac University another loss, finding that while the school has made “some” progress in complying with Title IX it’s not enough for the court to lift the injunction that prevents Quinnipiac from eliminating its women’s volleyball program.
The impetus for the initial lawsuit was Quinnipiac’s March 2009 announcement that in the 2009-10 academic year it would eliminate its varsity sports teams for women’s volleyball, men’s golf, and men’s outdoor track and field, while simultaneously creating a new varsity women’s competitive cheerleading team. Five women’s volleyball players and their coach filed suit against Quinnipiac in April 2009 alleging that Quinnipiac violated Title IX by denying women equal varsity athletic participation opportunities and sought injunctive relief preventing Quinnipiac from eliminating the women’s volleyball team.
Following a bench trial in 2010, District Judge Stefan R. Underhill, who is also overseeing the current motion to lift the injunction, found that Quinnipiac violated Title IX by failing to afford equal participation opportunities in varsity sports to female students.
Further, the district court permanently enjoined the university from continuing to discriminate against its female students by failing to provide equal athletic participation opportunities.
“Because cutting then-current women’s varsity teams would only exacerbate the problem, I also ordered that Quinnipiac not eliminate its women’s volleyball team, at least until the University implemented changes sufficient to bring it into full compliance with Title IX,” he wrote in the instant opinion.
“That decision, and the legal framework it adopted, was later affirmed on appeal. See Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ., 691 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2012). Quinnipiac has now moved to lift the injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Quinnipiac claims that changes to its athletics program over the past two years have brought the school into statistical compliance with Title IX and, as a result, the injunction should no longer have prospective application.”
This argument failed, noted the court, because “Quinnipiac has shown neither a significant change in its allocation of athletic opportunities, nor that inequity would result from continued enforcement of the injunction. At most, the University has shown that it has made some progress toward the goal of effective accommodation, but those modest adjustments over the past two years have brought only incremental improvements in gender equity, not full and lasting compliance with Title IX. By the measure of both the three-part and levels-of-competition tests, Quinnipiac remained in violation of the statute’s effective-accommodation mandate during the 2011-12 academic year.”
The court continued: “It bears mentioning that, at this juncture, two-thirds of the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims against Quinnipiac have yet to be litigated; the plaintiffs’ scholarship and equal-treatment claims are scheduled for trial later this year. Although the injunction was issued specifically to remedy Quinnipiac’s failure to comply with the effective-accommodation requirement, it is beyond cavil that a defendant may violate Title IX by failing to comply with any of the core regulatory requirements under the statute. See Mansourian v. Regents of Univ. of California, 602 F.3d 957, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2010). Indeed, the plaintiffs’ still-pending equal-treatment claim arises out of the very same regulatory provision as the effective-accommodation claim at issue here. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c). An effective-accommodation claim is but one side of the equal-athletic-opportunity coin under section 106.41(c). See Biediger, 691 F.3d at 92.
“Thus, it would be premature to lift the injunction at this stage and permit Quinnipiac to eliminate the volleyball team before full compliance with Title IX has been demonstrated. For this reason, too, the equities favor keeping the injunction in place, at least until the University’s overall compliance with Title IX can be fully assessed at trial.
“That raises the question of remedies going forward. As Quinnipiac is undoubtedly aware, district courts are empowered to order specific relief—such as the addition of women’s teams, or the elimination of men’s teams, as determined by the court—in Title IX cases, particularly where, as here, a defendant’s own remedial efforts have proven insufficient.
“Here, however, I do not believe such drastic measures are warranted. Although Quinnipiac still has a ways to go, I am confident that the University is making substantial progress toward Title IX compliance. The inquiry, therefore, is whether it is onerous or inequitable to keep the injunction—and the volleyball team—in place while Quinnipiac’s newly sponsored acro and rugby programs develop.”
Court Applauds Quinnipiac
The court added that Quinnipiac “has chosen to meet its statutory obligation by adding, inter alia, an emerging sport and an as-yet unrecognized sport. I applaud Quinnipiac for breaking new ground in women’s sports, and investing so heavily in new opportunities for female athletes. But having made that choice, Quinnipiac must now follow through with it. As demonstrated at trial, the acro and rugby teams still need to grow and mature before those teams can offer female students athletic opportunities on par with the opportunities Quinnipiac already offers its male students. Determining when and whether those two new teams have ripened into authentic Division I varsity programs—thereby bringing the University into full compliance with Title IX—will require assessment over time, at least more time than two short years.
“As the developmental process for acro and rugby unfolds—a process of Quinnipiac’s own choosing— the University should not be permitted to eliminate existing NCAA-championship sports for women.
“For the above reasons, I conclude that it is neither inequitable nor unduly burdensome for Quinnipiac to continue to sponsor the volleyball team while its newly-formed acro and rugby teams evolve toward genuine Division I varsity status. Because achieving Title IX compliance will require additional progress over a period of years, Quinnipiac’s motion to lift the injunction must be denied. Once acro and rugby reach parity with other Division I varsity teams—or, in the interim, if Quinnipiac supplements its current athletic program with other full-fledged NCAA championship sports for women—the University may renew its motion to lift the injunction.”
Biediger v. Quinnipiac; D. Conn,; No. 3:09-cv-621 (SRU); 3/4/13
View the opinion: http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/ctxc/8436DR18.pdf
