A federal judge from the District of Connecticut has denied the Connecticut Association of Schools (CIAC) and its co-defendants’ motion to dismiss a claim brought by four student athletes, who alleged that they were denied “opportunities at elite track-and-field levels” when the defendants facilitated the participation of transgender athletes against them.
The latest decision came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit remanded the case back to the district court, and the plaintiffs – Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith, and Ashley Nicoletti – filed an amended complaint, which led to the instant opinion.
The plaintiffs were former high school track athletes who raced against transgender girls in events sanctioned by the CIAC. Their original complaint alleged trans girls have unfair physiological advantages over their cis gender competitors, and as such, “students who are born female now have materially fewer opportunities to stand on the victory podium, fewer opportunities to participate in post-season elite competition, fewer opportunities for public recognition as champions, and a much smaller chance of setting recognized records, than students who are born male.” To remedy these purported Title IX violations, the plaintiffs-appellants sought monetary relief and injunctions to:
1. Prevent future enforcement of the Transgender Participation Policy, thereby barring transgender athletes from participating in CIAC-sponsored sports inconsistent with their biologically assigned sex; and
2. Remove athletic records/times achieved by trans athletes in sports inconsistent with their biologically assigned sex.”
The district court, however, dismissed each claim on April 25, 2021, determining that the request for enjoinment became moot after Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller (the trans athletes at the center of the case) graduated in June 2020. The court further stated that the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning the records were speculative, and the request for damages was barred.
That led to the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, its decision remanding the claim, and the amended complaint.
In addition to the chronology of events, the amended complaint alleged that the defendants’ “conduct negatively impacted the plaintiffs by conveying the dispiriting message that their interests and aspirations as student athletes were less worthy of protection than those of their male counterparts on the boys’ team.
“The amended complaint further alleges, either explicitly or by fair implication, that when the plaintiffs or their parents complained to the defendants, the response they received was dismissive at best. For example, a representative of CIAC told Chelsea Mitchell’s mother that further complaints on her part would receive no response and school officials admonished Chelsea herself to stop complaining.
“Finally, the amended complaint alleges that there has been a long history of systematic discrimination against women and girls in high school athletics in Connecticut. Construed most favorably to the plaintiffs, this allegation implies that the defendants would have responded differently if similar complaints about unfair competition had been made by and on behalf of boys.”
The court found enough merit to the plaintiff’s argument in the amended complaint.
The “allegations of the amended complaint, accepted as true and construed favorably to the plaintiffs, provide the basis for a disparate-treatment claim within the scope of Title IX’s implied private right of action; the plaintiffs’ home schools are potentially liable for subjecting the plaintiffs to discrimination under their athletic programs in violation of Title IX; and the impact of Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S.1, 101 S. Ct. 1531, 67 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1981) on the plaintiffs’ ability to obtain nominal damages, attorneys’ fees and costs cannot be determined at this time as a matter of law. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss are denied.”
