64 F.4th 992
8th Cir.2023Background
- OCR concluded in 2018 that the University of Minnesota met Title IX participation requirements under the OCR three-factor test (substantial proportionality).
- COVID-19 financial shortfalls and a post-2016 enrollment shift increased the male/female participation disparity; University adopted a compliance plan cutting four men’s teams (including men’s gymnastics) to achieve Title IX compliance and save costs.
- Ng enrolled in 2020 knowing the team would be disbanded after the 2020–21 season, competed briefly, then stayed at the University; most coaches and players left after elimination.
- Friends of Minnesota Men’s Gymnastics offered private funding (≈ $200,000/yr or three-year bridge) but the University rejected those offers.
- Ng sued (Oct. 2021) alleging Title IX and Equal Protection violations and moved for a preliminary injunction (Nov. 2021) to reinstate the team; the district court denied the injunction under the Dataphase factors, finding Ng’s delay undermined irreparable harm and that his claims lacked merit.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Ng’s delay (at least six months, 13 months from notice) was unreasonable given the collegiate season timing and loss of personnel, which defeated his irreparable-harm showing and warranted denial of injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ng showed irreparable harm warranting a preliminary injunction | Elimination of team denies opportunity to compete; scholarships/transfer do not cure harm | Ng delayed in seeking injunction; delay undermines irreparable-harm claim | Delay unreasonable (given season/timing and staff departures) and undermined irreparable harm; injunction denied |
| Whether Ng is likely to succeed on Title IX claim | Title IX violation based on elimination of men’s team | Title IX claim foreclosed by existing precedent (Chalenor) | District court found Title IX claim foreclosed; appellate court did not reach merits because delay dispositive |
| Whether Ng’s Equal Protection claim survives | Separate constitutional remedy for sex discrimination | Claim is an impermissible collateral attack on Title IX; even if considered, intermediate scrutiny is satisfied | District court treated it as collateral attack and applied intermediate scrutiny, which University met; appellate court did not need to decide after finding delay dispositive |
| Whether appellate court may judicially notice Rosha Letter | Letter is a public record under state statute; request to notice it | Letter’s contents are argumentative and not indisputable public facts | Court declined to take judicial notice and struck references to the letter from appellant’s brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- Chalenor v. University of North Dakota, 291 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2002) (Title IX claim precedent relied on by defendant)
- D.M. by Bao Xiong v. Minn. State High Sch. League, 917 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2019) (denial to compete can constitute irreparable harm)
- Ohlensehlen v. University of Iowa, 509 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (S.D. Iowa 2020) (school elimination of team causes irreparable harm despite scholarships/transfer)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (movant must show likelihood of irreparable harm for injunction)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (denial of constitutional rights can be irreparable harm)