Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Department of Education
639 F.3d 91
4th Cir.2011Background
- EIA challenges DOE's Title IX guidelines and JMU's 2006 team eliminations as Title IX noncompliance and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funds; Javits Amendment guided athletics regulation, producing the Three-Part Test.
- DOE's 1979 Policy Interpretation established Three-Part Test as means to evaluate equality of athletic opportunities.
- DOE issued clarifications (1996, 2003, 2005) emphasizing flexibility and that compliance may be achieved via any prong of the Three-Part Test.
- JMU eliminated ten varsity teams (seven men’s, three women’s) to achieve proportionality; 61% female students but only 50.7% of athletes were female.
- District court dismissed EIA’s claims; on appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, addressing standing, merits, and procedural issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EIA has organizational standing. | EIA has members injured by JMU's cuts and can redress via invalidating Three-Part Test. | Standing lacking because injuries may be redressed through university actions, not DOE. | EIA has organizational standing against both DOE and JMU. |
| Whether the Three-Part Test is a valid Title IX enforcement mechanism. | Three-Part Test creates a disparaty-based standard that discriminates against men. | Test provides flexibility; not a mandatory disparate-impact requirement and aligns with Title IX. | Three-Part Test is valid and flexible; does not improperly impose disparate impact. |
| Whether DOE's Three-Part Test violates equal protection. | Proportionality-based approach constitutes unconstitutional enrollment quotas. | Equal protection allows sex-based considerations to achieve substantial proportionality. | No violation of equal protection; proportionality prong upheld as constitutional. |
| Whether EIA's APA/GEPA/Presidential-approval claims invalidate the Three-Part Test. | Three-Part Test lacks APA notice/comment and presidential approval; GEPA issues as well. | Interpretive guidelines are exempt from APA notice/comment and presidential approval applies to rules, not interpretive guidelines. | Procedural challenges fail; interpretive guidelines valid without APA notice/comment or presidential approval. |
| Whether state law claims against JMU were properly dismissed. | JMU violated Virginia law and state procedures in secretive elimination. | Eleventh Amendment bars private suits against state officials for state-law claims; no applicable exception. | District court properly dismissed state-law claims against JMU. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Brown Univ., 101 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1996) (Title IX permits sex-based remedial measures to achieve substantial proportionality; not a quota system)
- Kelley v. Bd. of Tr., Univ. of Ill., 35 F.3d 265 (7th Cir. 1994) (Policy interpretation creates presumption of compliance; does not mandate quotas)
- Neal v. Bd. of Tr. of Cal. State Univ. System, 198 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 1999) (Affirms flexibility of Three-Part Test to achieve substantial proportionality)
- Cohen I, 991 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1993) (Title IX does not require unlimited funding; can meet compliance by increasing opportunities)
- Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2002) (Equal-protection and Title IX challenges to proportionality and eliminations; upholds flexibility)