401 F.Supp.3d 834
D. Minnesota2019Background
- Plaintiffs are female student‑athletes (class certified) who sued St. Cloud State University (SCSU) and Minnesota State Colleges & Universities under Title IX for unequal allocation of athletic participation opportunities and inequitable athletic treatment/benefits; the case proceeded to a bench trial after earlier dismissals of some claims.
- SCSU is a public university receiving federal funds; enrollment declined sharply from FY2011 to FY2017 and SCSU cut six teams in 2016 (including women’s tennis and Nordic skiing) citing budget and Title IX compliance efforts.
- SCSU uses a three‑tier support model for sports, applied roster caps and a roster‑management scheme tied to the date of first competition to affect participation counts; OCR counting rules differ from SCSU’s method.
- Evidence showed gaps between female enrollment and female athletic participation (historic shortfalls of 117–179 slots 2004–2016; gaps of 26–28 in 2016–18), limited, infrequent assessment of student interest/ability, and requests/demonstrated interest in additional women’s sports (e.g., lacrosse, bowling).
- Plaintiffs presented extensive testimony and exhibits showing disparities in facilities, travel, equipment replacement, medical access, publicity, and practice/game scheduling that cumulatively favored men; the court found many inequities non‑negligible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past Title IX compliance (Prong One: proportionality) | SCSU failed to provide participation opportunities substantially proportional to female enrollment | SCSU relied on its participation counts and roster management to assert compliance | Held: SCSU violated Prong One for years prior to 2016; large historical shortfall proved non‑proportional |
| Past Title IX compliance (Prong Two: history of expansion) | SCSU failed to show a history/continuing practice of adding women’s teams or increasing women’s participation | SCSU pointed to past additions and budget constraints | Held: Failed — no sustained expansion, elimination of women’s gymnastics, and denials of requests weigh against compliance |
| Past Title IX compliance (Prong Three: unmet interest/ability/competition) | Plaintiffs showed unmet interest (surveys, club teams, requests) and sufficient ability/competition regionally | SCSU claimed lack of resources and limited demonstrated interest/competition | Held: Failed — insufficient assessments, multiple indicators of interest/ability, and no effort to develop regional competition meant unmet need existed |
| Present Title IX compliance (post‑2016 participation gap and roster counting) | Current participation remains non‑proportional (26–28 slot shortfall); roster practices create non‑genuine opportunities | SCSU argued its counting methods and temporary measures addressed compliance | Held: Violative — current allocation not substantially proportional; gap sufficient to field viable teams; roster practices described as problematic but court relied on reported numbers |
| Levels of competition test | Plaintiffs argued other tests apply; levels‑of‑competition disparities exist generally | SCSU noted NCAA controls schedules and both sexes compete at appropriate divisions | Held: Levels test satisfied (Division I only for hockey; others Division II); not dispositive because institution still must meet a three‑part test |
| Treatment and benefits (Laundry List factors) | Systemic, cumulative disparities in locker rooms, travel, equipment, medical access, facilities favored men | SCSU argued many services/factors are shared and some differences are sport‑specific or nondiscriminatory | Held: Violative — multiple factors (locker rooms, facilities, travel, medical access, equipment replacement) favored men and the overall effect was not negligible |
| Remedy (declaratory relief and injunctive relief) | Plaintiffs sought declarations and permanent injunction to restore/maintain women’s teams and remedy inequities | SCSU emphasized budget constraints and enrollment declines | Held: Relief granted — declaratory judgment for Plaintiffs; permanent injunction ordering SCSU to (among other things) maintain women’s tennis and Nordic skiing while viable or otherwise narrow the gap, improve women’s facilities (Selke Field, Nordic room), eliminate tier distribution inequities, report compliance biannually; court retained jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Chalenor v. Univ. of North Dakota, 291 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2002) (federal Title IX regulatory interpretation precedents govern athletics analysis)
- Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ., 928 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D. Conn. 2013) (levels‑of‑competition test is seldom decisive given NCAA schedule rules)
- McCormick ex rel. McCormick v. Sch. Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2004) (denial of athletic participation causes irreparable harm relevant to injunctive relief)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four‑factor equitable test for permanent injunctions)
- Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ., 297 F. Supp. 3d 929 (D. Minn. 2018) (prior district opinion addressing aspects of plaintiffs’ claims and class definition)