Alexie Portz v. St. Cloud State University
16 F.4th 577
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- St. Cloud State University (a federal-funds recipient) cut six varsity teams in 2016 during a budget shortfall, including women’s tennis and women’s Nordic skiing; at the time it sponsored 23 teams (12 women’s, 11 men’s) and two Division I hockey teams.
- Ten former female athletes from the disbanded women’s teams sued in a class action alleging Title IX sex discrimination (participation opportunities and unequal treatment/benefits).
- The district court preliminarily enjoined the cuts to women’s tennis and Nordic skiing, held a bench trial, and found Title IX violations for both (participation opportunities and treatment/benefits); it entered declaratory relief, an injunction requiring equitable opportunities and benefits, and awarded over $1 million in fees and costs.
- The district court found the athletic program was organized into three tiers of support and relied on that tiering in parts of its treatment-and-benefits analysis and in the remedy.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of a Title IX violation as to participation opportunities (the three-part test), but reversed the treatment-and-benefits ruling because the district court: (1) improperly analyzed equity across subparts (tiers) rather than the program “as a whole,” and (2) omitted consideration of key evidence (notably the women’s volleyball program); the court vacated the portion of the injunction tied to tiers and vacated the attorneys’ fees award, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the University violated Title IX by denying equitable athletic participation opportunities (three-part test) | Cuts and roster changes left participation opportunities not effectively accommodating women’s interests/abilities and failed Prong One/Two/Three | Cuts were justified by budget/enrollment decline; roster management addressed parity | Affirmed: district court did not err; Title IX participation-opportunities violation sustained |
| Whether the University denied equitable treatment and benefits (laundry-list factors) | Disparities in equipment, facilities, travel, coaching, etc., produced substantial, unjustified program-wide disadvantages to women | University contends program-wide compliance and that any disparities are justified by nondiscriminatory or sport-specific factors | Reversed: district court erred; treatment-and-benefits analysis must assess program-wide distribution (global) or particular laundry-list factors, but not mandate equity across court-found tiers; remand for reconsideration |
| Whether the district court properly used a three-tier classification in evaluating and remedying treatment/participation inequities | Plaintiffs used tiers to show men disproportionately benefited from higher-support tiers and thus program-wide inequity | University argued tiers finding was clearly erroneous and that compliance must be judged program-wide, not by sub-tier parity | Court: tiers finding as a factual matter was not clearly erroneous, but the district court improperly used tiers to impose a remedy requiring equity "among the tiers"; injunction vacated to that extent |
| Evidentiary rulings and omissions (volleyball evidence; post-discovery property inspection) — did errors prejudice the University? | Plaintiffs relied on extensive trial evidence, including inspections; omission of volleyball evidence did not change outcome | University argued the district court omitted significant evidence (women’s volleyball) and improperly admitted a late site inspection, prejudicing its defense | Court: omission of volleyball-related evidence from the treatment-and-benefits analysis was a significant error requiring remand; admission of the inspection evidence was troubling but not shown prejudicial, so not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawn Managers, Inc. v. Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc., 959 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for bench-trial legal conclusions and factual findings)
- Miller v. Thurston, 967 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion review for injunctions and evidentiary rulings)
- Holmes v. Slay, 895 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard for reversing evidentiary rulings requires clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion)
- Chalenor v. Univ. of N.D., 291 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2002) (Title IX bars sex-based exclusion and HEW/agency interpretation controls)
- McCormick ex rel. McCormick v. Sch. Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussion of Title IX three-part test and laundry-list factors)
- Parker v. Franklin Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2012) (disparities within individual program components can constitute a Title IX violation)
- Grandson v. Univ. of Minn., 272 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2001) (courts should not act as de facto athletic directors; remedies must stay within Title IX bounds)
- King v. United States, 553 F.3d 1156 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 52(a) requires sufficient findings of fact after a bench trial)