781 F.Supp.3d 565
W.D. Mich.2025Background
- Chloe Allen, a female high school student, tried out for the Escanaba Area Public Schools varsity boys' hockey team during the 2022–2023 season but was denied a fair makeup tryout after missing the initial sessions due to illness.
- Allen claims she was excluded from the team, as well as practice player and student manager positions, on account of her sex, and that the school retaliated against her after complaints were made about this treatment.
- At issue is whether the school’s boys' hockey team is, by policy, open to both sexes, and if Allen was denied the opportunity to try out or participate because of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX and Michigan state law (ELCRA).
- The school district moved for summary judgment, asserting Allen did not make the team solely due to insufficient hockey skills, and no actionable discriminatory or retaliatory conduct occurred.
- The Court evaluated Allen’s claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, given the lack of clear precedent on individual disparate treatment athletic claims under Title IX, as opposed to program-wide claims.
- Allen and her brother H.A. abandoned their remaining claims under the U.S. Constitution and state FOIA, and the court treated such claims as forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment under Title IX/ELCRA | Allen was denied a fair tryout and team participation due to sex | Allen was not skilled enough; previously allowed girls; policy not discriminatory | Allen failed to present evidence of district-level discrimination; summary judgment for defendant |
| Retaliation under Title IX/ELCRA | Allen suffered adverse action (withdrawal of tryout, exclusion from Senior Night) after complaining about discrimination | No protected activity reported; actions didn't rise to adverse action or retaliation by the district | No prima facie retaliation claim made; summary judgment for defendant |
| Contact sports exception to Title IX | School’s policy and practice allowed girls to try out; thus, exception shouldn't shield EAPS | Hockey is a contact sport and can be boys-only under Title IX rules | Disputed facts about team policy, but even assuming in Allen's favor, claim fails on merits |
| Abandonment of additional claims and parties | No objection to dismissal; not pressing unaddressed claims | Claims not defended should be treated as abandoned | Claims treated as abandoned—summary judgment granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677 (implied private right of action under Title IX)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (retaliation is a form of sex discrimination under Title IX)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Title IX liability standards)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation in Title VII retaliation claims)
- McCormick ex rel. McCormick v. Sch. Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275 (Title IX equal treatment claim must be program-wide)
- Communities for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 459 F.3d 676 (facially sex-based classifications under Title IX)
- Bose v. Bea, 947 F.3d 983 (limits to institutional liability under Title IX)