297 F. Supp. 3d 929
D. Me.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are current or prospective female student‑athletes at St. Cloud State University (SCSU) challenging SCSU/MSCU plans to eliminate several sports (including women’s tennis and Nordic skiing) as violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
- SCSU is a state instrumentality that receives federal funds; it uses a four‑tier athletics system and experienced enrollment/revenue declines prompting proposed program cuts.
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees; a prior preliminary injunction enjoined elimination of the women’s tennis team.
- The court addressed four motions: (1) SCSU’s partial summary judgment (seeking dismissal of the §1983 claim and monetary damages), (2) Plaintiffs’ class‑certification, (3) SCSU’s motion to strike late reply filings, and (4) SCSU’s Daubert motion to exclude expert Dr. Lopiano.
- Court granted summary judgment dismissing the §1983 equal‑protection claim and all damages claims; certified a modified class of present, prospective, and future female SCSU students harmed by sex discrimination in athletic participation, financial aid, and benefits; denied motion to strike; granted/denied Daubert motion in part (limiting expert testimony about legal conclusions and barring disclosure of certain underlying hearsay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 Equal Protection claim against SCSU is barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity | State waived immunity (Minn. Stat. §121A.04), or acceptance of federal funds/Title IX abrogates immunity | SCSU is a state instrumentality; no clear waiver in statute; Title IX abrogation does not extend to §1983 equal‑protection claims | Dismissed §1983 claim: Eleventh Amendment bars suit; no waiver or valid abrogation for §1983 equal‑protection claims against the state |
| Whether Plaintiffs may recover Title IX monetary damages | Plaintiffs claim deliberate indifference and actual notice supporting damages under Gebser | SCSU contends no official‑policy basis and no actual notice to an official with authority; general knowledge/surveys insufficient | Damages dismissed: applying Gebser, no evidence SCSU had actual notice of the Plaintiffs’ monetary‑injury claims and plaintiffs failed to give requisite notice |
| Class certification under Rule 23 | Proposed broad class of all present/future female SCSU students deterred or seeking participation | SCSU says class is overbroad/unascertainable and should be limited to tennis/Nordic skiing members | Granted as modified: certified class of present, prospective, and future female students “who are harmed by and want to end” SCSU’s sex discrimination in participation opportunities, financial aid, and benefits; Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) satisfied; appointed class counsel |
| Admissibility of Dr. Lopiano’s expert opinions (Daubert/Rule 702 and Rule 703) | Lopiano offers background on Title IX, comparative institutional compliance, program history, financial‑aid analysis, and laundry‑list treatment assessments | SCSU argues legal conclusions, unreliable methods, hearsay reliance, and outdated factual predicates render opinions inadmissible | Granted in part/denied in part: excluded testimony that states legal requirements or opines whether SCSU complies with Title IX; allowed background on Title IX history and other institutions’ compliance, program‑history and financial‑aid analyses; allowed laundry‑list opinions but barred disclosure to the jury of underlying out‑of‑court evaluations by former employees (probative value did not outweigh prejudicial effect) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Title IX damages require actual notice to an official and deliberate indifference)
- Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615 (Title IX abrogation does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for §1983 equal‑protection claims)
- Dukes v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 564 U.S. 338 (class commonality requires common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (district court gatekeeping for expert admissibility)
- Lauzon v. Senco Prods., 270 F.3d 681 (Rule 702 standards explained)
- Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 457 F.3d 748 (proponent bears burden to show expert qualification and reliable methodology)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (Congressional abrogation standard)
- Grandson v. Univ. of Minn., 272 F.3d 568 (Gebser applied to athletic program claims in Eighth Circuit)