A federal judge has ordered Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania to reinstate its women’s swimming and water polo teams after concluding that the school violated Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded educational programs.
Earlier this year, SRU cut the programs, along with five men’s sports, in an attempt to reduce a $2 million budget deficit.
In granting a preliminary injunction that reinstated the programs, District Chief Judge Donetta Ambrose held that school officials had not been compliant with Title IX and that they were fully aware of that failure. In particular, she noted the disparity of the male-to-female ratio within the athlete population and the student population. She also singled out the fact that Slippery Rock had not added a women’s varsity team since 1993.
While she granted the injunction, the judge left the door open for the university to eliminate the women’s programs again as long as it could do so while remaining Title IX compliant.
The lawsuit was originally filed by 12 Slippery Rock student athletes after the school announced plans to cut several men’s and women’s sports programs at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. It consisted of two counts: the violation of Title IX’s equal participation requirement and failure to treat female athletes substantially equal with respect to coaching and training, equipment and supplies, publicity, promotional materials and events, transportation, uniforms, playing fields, locker rooms and other facilities.
The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, or the immediate reinstatement of women’s swimming and women’s water polo programs, and the appointment of coaches, scheduling of competition and provision of all other benefits normally associated with varsity status at SRU.
The court began its analysis of the aforementioned motion by reviewing the history of Title IX compliance at SRU.
In 2001, the university hired Alden & Associates to determine whether SRU was in compliance with Title IX. Alden informed SRU, prior to its decision to cut programs, that “a 15 percent disparity would be viewed unfavorably and would not satisfy Title IX’s substantial proportionality test.” Further, according to the court, it found that SRU had not complied with Title IX with respect to the provision of financial assistance, equipment, uniforms, facilities, coaching recruitment funds and publicity as it related to women.
“Alden concluded its review by strongly recommending that SRU offer another women’s varsity sport,” wrote the court.
Ignoring this advice, SRU President Robert Smith developed a spreadsheet with a set of criteria by which all 23 teams would be assessed and ranked. “By approaching the elimination of certain teams in this manner, Smith hoped to make his decision as objective and factual as possible,” wrote the court.
“He rejected recommendations by the University Athletic Council to take into consideration gender equity and Title IX compliance. Smith testified that he wanted to keep financial decisions completely separate from Title IX decisions. The spreadsheet Smith used included both financial data, reflecting the costs and revenues associated with each team, and non-financial evaluative measures, such as how competitive each team was, the academic performance of the student-athletes, the quality of the coaching staff and the condition of the facilities.”
Turning to the motion, the court focused on the four elements the plaintiffs would have to prove:
(1) the likelihood of their success on the merits of their case;
(2) the probability of sustaining irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief;
(3) a minimal amount of harm to SRU if relief is granted; and
(4) that the public interest favors the grant of injunctive relief.
See Alessi v. Commw. of Pa. Dept. Of Public Welfare, 893 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1990).
On each point, the court sided with the plaintiffs.
Elizabeth Laura Choike, et al. v. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania of The State System of Higher Education, et al.; W.D.Pa.; Civil Action No. 06-622; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49886; 7/21/06
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Abbe F. Fletman, Flaster Greenberg, P.C., Philadelphia, PA US; Lizanne V. Hoerst, Flaster/Greenberg, Cherry Hill, NJ US; Susan J. Frietsche, Women’s Law Project, Western Pennsylvania Office, Pittsburgh, PA; Terry L. Fromson, Women’s Law Project, Philadelphia, PA US. (for defendants) Mariah Passarelli, Office of the Attorney General, Pittsburgh, PA US; Scott A. Bradley, Office of the Attorney General, Pittsburgh, PA.
The attorneys take (Abbe F. Fletman of Flaster/Greenberg P.C.):
“This is an important ruling that reaffirms federal laws protecting the rights of women to have equal access to educational programs.”
(Susan Frietsche, Senior Staff Attorney at the Women’s Law Project):
“We are pleased that Judge Ambrose also noted that, in deciding which teams to cut, Slippery Rock President Robert Smith applied an overtly discriminatory standard that disadvantaged women, requiring the women’s teams to achieve an overall higher academic grade point average than the men’s teams.”
