346 F. Supp. 3d 983
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Marie Mayerova and Ariana Chretien are former EMU student‑athletes on eliminated women's tennis and softball teams; they sued under Title IX and § 1983 (Equal Protection) and moved for a preliminary injunction to reinstate the teams.
- EMU cut four teams (men’s wrestling, men’s swimming & diving, women’s tennis, women’s softball) in March 2018 as part of $2 million athletic budget reductions while keeping NCAA Division I and Mid‑American Conference membership.
- Before cuts EMU undergraduates were ~59.5% women but only ~44.3% of athletes were female (406 men, 323 women out of 729 athletes), creating a long‑running participation gap.
- EMU submitted roster‑management plans projecting future increases in women’s roster spots but provided limited evidence of past successful expansion, no recent interest surveys, and weak documentation that proposed additions were responsive to developing female athletic interest.
- Court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on Title IX Three‑Part Test (no substantial proportionality; EMU failed to prove history/continuing practice of effective expansion; interests not fully accommodated), and granted the preliminary injunction to reinstate the teams pending a status conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may enforce Title IX implementing guidance/regulations (private right of action) | Mayerova/Chretien: Title IX and OCR guidance implement §1681(a) and support an intentional‑discrimination claim; private action available | EMU: Sandoval bars private enforcement of administrative guidance beyond the statute (argues guidance creates disparate‑impact standard) | Court: Plaintiffs have a private right to enforce Title IX as applied; Sandoval inapplicable because claim alleges intentional discrimination and guidance interprets, not expands, Title IX |
| Whether EMU satisfies Title IX Three‑Part Test (substantial proportionality; history of expansion; interests accommodated) | Plaintiffs: EMU lacks proportionality and has unmet female interest; roster plans are promises, not demonstrated expansion | EMU: Participation has increased in raw numbers and roster plans (2014, 2018) show intent to reach parity; cuts were financially necessary and also affected men | Court: EMU fails part one and cannot demonstrate a history/continuing practice of expansion (part two); part three not met—plaintiffs likely to prevail on Title IX claim |
| Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent injunction | Plaintiffs: Loss of unique, time‑limited athletic opportunities, training and recruiting disadvantages; barriers to transferring (visa, major availability) | EMU: Scholarships remain; plaintiffs can transfer; plaintiffs delayed filing; financial realities justify cuts | Held: Court finds irreparable harm (civil‑rights presumption + athletic season/time‑sensitive nature); delay not fatal |
| Balance of harms & public interest re: preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs: Harm to individuals and Title IX enforcement outweighs cost | EMU: Reinstatement costs (~$1M) and institutional autonomy favor denying relief | Held: Equity and public interest favor injunction; financial hardship not a Title IX defense; reinstatement ordered pending further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (recognizes private right of action under Title IX)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency Title IX interpretations entitled to deference)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (limits private enforcement of disparate‑impact regulations; distinguished here)
- Cohen v. Brown University, 991 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1993) (interpreting Three‑Part Test and deference to OCR guidance)
- Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Dept. of Educ., 639 F.3d 91 (4th Cir. 2011) (OCR Three‑Part Test implements Title IX; agency guidance permissible)
- Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ., 691 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2012) (cuts to women's teams state disparate‑treatment claim; discusses counting and proportionality)
- Favia v. Indiana Univ. of Pa., 812 F. Supp. 578 (W.D. Pa. 1993) (loss of collegiate teams causes irreparable harm; supports injunctive relief)