Biediger v. Quinnipiac University
691 F.3d 85
2d Cir.2012Background
- Quinnipiac University appealed a district court permanent injunction under Title IX after a bench trial finding discrimination in varsity athletic opportunities.
- District court determined Quinnipiac’s count of female participation opportunities was distorted by cross-country runners counted on multiple tracks and by including competitive cheerleading as a sport.
- The court discounted five cross-country runners’ track spots and six track spots due to injury/red-shirt status, and entirely discounted 30 cheerleading spots as not a varsity sport.
- Total counted varsity participation opportunities were 400, with 233 (58.25%) for women and 167 (41.75%) for men.
- Undergraduate female enrollment was 61.87%, yielding a 3.62% disparity; the district court held this disparity and the university’s actions violated Title IX and warranted an injunction.
- The appellate panel affirmed, rejecting Quinnipiac’s challenges to the district court’s methodology and its Title IX ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district count properly counted opportunities | Quinnipiac argues numbers improperly inflated women’s opportunities | Quinnipiac contends adjustments were incorrect and inflated men's opportunities | The court upheld the district court’s counting method and reductions. |
| Whether cheerleading should be counted as a varsity sport | Cheerleading should count as a sport if it provides genuine opportunities | Cheerleading was not yet a varsity sport and thus not countable | Competitive cheerleading not counted as a varsity sport for Title IX purposes. |
| Whether the 3.62% disparity establishes substantial proportionality violation | Any disparity indicates lack of substantial proportionality | Small disparities are permissible under the three-part test | 3.62% disparity, considering context, supports lack of substantial proportionality. |
| Whether the district court’s injunction was proper based on Title IX discrimination | Discrimination was proven; injunction appropriate and necessary | Judicial deference to agency interpretations should limit the injunction | Injunction affirmed; district court properly held Title IX violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick ex rel. McCormick v. Sch. Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2004) (three-part Title IX safe harbors accord deference to agency interpretations)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2009) (disparate treatment inquiry; focus on lawful justification)
- Equity In Athletics, Inc. v. DOE, 639 F.3d 91 (4th Cir. 2011) (case-by-case analysis of substantial proportionality; not a fixed %, DOE guidance)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. 2001) (disparate impact limitations on private rights in Title IX context)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (persuasive power of agency interpretations; deference framework)