By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Senior Writer and Professor, Sports Media (retired), Ithaca College Roy H. Park School of Communications
On April 14, 2026, Quinnipiac University (QU) announced changes to its menu of athletic program offerings with the addition of a varsity men’s indoor and outdoor distance program and the demotion of its women’s rugby team to club status. In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, 50 former QU women’s rugby players sent a letter opposing the decision to the Board of Trustees, President, and Athletics Administration. Colleen (Doherty) Carr (QU ’14), a former player and assistant coach with the program, posted a petition on Change.org to appeal the decision and to raise funds to support players in their efforts to legally challenge it. Those efforts to appeal to QU leadership were unpersuasive. Six weeks later, in Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac University et al. 23 current and incoming women rugby players claimed that the University had engaged in long-standing sex discrimination and retaliation. Simultaneously, they also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent QU from moving women’s rugby from a varsity to club team and requiring QU to maintain the team as a varsity sport while the lawsuit was litigated.
Quinnipiac’s Public Position on Athletic Department Restructuring
According to the Quinnipiac athletic director, Greg Amodio, the decision to restructure the athletic department was driven by the need to reallocate existing athletic department resources while balancing Title IX compliance considerations. At the time of the decision, Quinnipiac was offering women athletes proportionally more opportunities to participate in varsity sport compared to men athletes relative to the enrollment of men and women in the undergraduate population. After a process of review that relied on compliance with Title IX as a “guiding priority”, QU noted in the announcement regarding the program realignment that it reflected “… the University’s commitment to maintaining gender equitable participation opportunities while ensuring the long-term viability and competitive health of its varsity sport offerings” (QU Athletic Communications, 2026, para. 4).
Plaintiffs’ Claims of Title IX Violations, Sex Discrimination, and Retaliation
Broadly stated, the Plaintiffs who represent themselves and future female students at Quinnipiac, seek relief from QU’s alleged failure to provide equal athletic benefits and treatment, services, and resources. According to the complaint, Becky Carlson, the now former head women’s rugby coach, made repeated attempts since her hiring in 2011 to raise awareness regarding gender inequities that affected women athletes and coaches of women’s teams at Quinnipiac. She was expressing those concerns in large part during a time when the university was under a consent decree stemming from a previous Title IX lawsuit (Beidiger et al., v. Quinnipiac University et al.) settled in 2013 that resulted in the addition of women’s rugby as a varsity sport. Between 2013 and 2016, Carlson raised concerns that the university was not upholding its obligation to comply with the consent decree by failing to provide a well-maintained and safe facility for women rugby players to practice and compete. In 2017, Carlson filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights alleging that women athletes were being deprived of equal access to strength and conditioning programs and facilities and that the women’s rugby program was not being promoted or celebrated in a manner similar to that of the men’s ice hockey program. The Plaintiffs further allege that QU spends more in the aggregate on men’s sports than on women’s sports across operational areas and in recruiting talent.
Specific to the sport of women’s rugby, the lawsuit alleges immediate harms to the women rugby players due to the timing of the announcement of the demotion of the program and changes in NCAA eligibility standards. As per the complaint, “Comparable opportunities are extraordinarily limited. There are approximately thirteen NCAA Division I women’s rugby programs nationwide. As a result, Plaintiffs do not have a broad market of comparable Division I women’s varsity rugby opportunities available to them” (Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac University et al., 2026, Section 214, p. 43).
With the loss of a varsity sport infrastructure, women rugby players lose access to support services available to NCAA Division I varsity teams, including but not limited to athletic training support, academic tutoring, strength and conditioning support, and publicity services as well as athletic scholarships. They note at this point in time, when NCAA Division I institutions are starting to share revenue with college athletes due to the settlement in House et al. v. NCAA et al. (2025), women rugby players suffer deprivations from being denied access to the benefits of that settlement. They further argue that the demotion to club status will affect the access athletes have to national and Olympic level competition beyond the collegiate realm.
The Plaintiffs argue that the action to transition the women’s rugby team from varsity to club status constitutes retaliation for advocacy behavior protected under the Title IX statute. Arguing that women’s rugby at QU was a symbol of Title IX advocacy given that the sport was added as a result of the Biediger lawsuit and that the program’s head coach, Becky Carlson, had routinely raised concerns about equitable treatment with the administration both privately and publicly, the Plaintiffs characterize QU’s decision to demote women’s rugby as an action that falls under the definition of retaliation. They further argue that if left unchallenged, the demotion will have a chilling effect on individuals who would otherwise speak up to rectify sex discrimination in the athletic program.
Remedies Sought
Among the remedies sought, the Plaintiffs request a restraining order that prevents QU from “eliminating, downgrading, defunding, discontinuing, or otherwise harming the women’s varsity rugby program or any other women’s varsity team” (Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac University et al., 2026, p. 60). The Plaintiffs further seek to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring QU to support and treat women’s athletic programs equally, to prevent QU from retaliating against individuals who exercise their right to advocate on behalf of women athletes and coaches of women’s teams under Title IX, and to require QU to distribute post-House Settlement benefits equally. Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages as well as attorneys’ fees.
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Denied
Following an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments, Judge Kari Dooley in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. While the Judge expressed sympathy for the women rugby players and the disruption to their expectations of playing on a Division I team, she concluded that they had not demonstrated that their claim was likely to succeed on the merits or the questions raised regarding the merits were sufficiently serious to warrant litigation. Although the complaint includes allegations of sex discrimination and violations of Title IX, the Plaintiffs relied exclusively on the claim that QU’s decision to alter the status of the women’s rugby program was retaliatory in the oral argument. In order to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title IX, a plaintiff needs to establish they engaged in protected activity; that the defendant had knowledge of the protected activity; that there was an adverse action taken by the defendant; and that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. It was the fourth element that proved problematic for the Plaintiffs. They were unable to establish a causative connection between the gender equity concerns raised by Coach Carlson and the demotion of the team under either a “but for” standard of retaliation or a “motivating factor” standard of retaliation.
The Court did indicate that a condensed case management schedule would be issued with the goal of moving the case forward to trial as expeditiously as possible. Her reasoning was that if the Plaintiffs prevailed at trial, there would be sufficient time for the team to be reinstated as a varsity sport for the 2027-2028 academic year.
References
Associated Press. (2026, June 5). Rugby players sue Quinnipiac after program dropped to club level. ESPN.com. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48978112/rugby-players-sue-quinnipiac-program-dropped-club-level
Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ. (“Biediger II”), 691 F.3d 85, 91–92 (2d Cir. 2012)
Carr, C. (2026). Petition. Reinstate Women’s Rugby at Quinnipiac University. Change.org. https://www.change.org/p/reinstate-women-s-rugby-at-quinnipiac-university
Gibbard Cook, S. (2014, May 9). How not to cheat women in athletics under Title IX. Women in Higher Education 19 (9), p. 7-8. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/whe.10091
Letter from Quinnipiac University Former Women’s Rugby Players (2026). To the Board of Trustees, President, and Athletic Administration. https://www.change.org/p/reinstate-women-s-rugby-at-quinnipiac-university
Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac et al. (2026, June 30). Class action complaint and jury demand. U.S. District Court District of Connecticut. 3:26-CV-00898 (KAD)
Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac et al. (2026, June 30). Memorandum of Decision: Re: Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. U.S. District Court District of Connecticut. 3:26-CV-00898 (KAD)
QU Athletic Communications. (2026, April 14). Quinnipiac University announces Athletics realignment to support long-term competitive, financial, and Title IX objectives. Press release. https://gobobcats.com/news/2026/4/14/general-quinnipiac-university-announces-athletics-realignment-to-support-long-term-competitive-financial-and-title-ix-objectives
