Striebel v. Minnesota State High School League
321 N.W.2d 400
Minn.
1982
Check Treatment

*1 аlso hold Meeting Law. We Open late meeting did 27 board September Meeting Law. Open

not violate

Reversed. Minnesota, STRIEBEL, State

Charlotte Commissioner, Wilson,

by William L. Rights, Appel

Department of Human

lants, HIGH STATE

The MINNESOTA LEAGUE, Respondent.

SCHOOL 51940, 52042.

Nos. of Minnesota.

Supreme Court 10, 1982.

Rehearing Sept. Denied

9, 1976),the plaintiffs alleged discrimi- the nation in Paul pro- St. school athletic grams. Interpreting the language of Minn. (1978) Stat. 126.21 the court § found that impermissible seasons were unless Hanson, MCLU, Ojala, C. Linda Diane necessary shown be provide equal op- MCLU, for Minneapolis, Striebel. for portunity participate ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‍both sexes to Gen., Lev- Spannaus, Atty. Warren Mark athletics. Pursuant to that decision the St. Vareo, Sp. and inger Attys. Richard Asst. Paul program school board established a for Gen., Paul, boys St. for State. combined seasons girls partici- for and pating swimming tеnnis, and the effect Talle, Douglas Klint Trimble and E. & of which was to exclude male swimmers Klint, Anoka, respondent. for and players participa- female tennis from Peterson, Flynn, Knutson Popovich, & tion in state parents tournaments. After of Graham, Popovich Peter S. and Frances H. several male swimmers and femalе tennis Paul, for St. amicus ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‍curiae Minnesota players proposed sued to restrain the Ass’n. School Boards change, the St. Paul of Board Education enjoined combining

was from seasons and swimming ordered set the and tennis seasons to conform with by the dates set Stumpf the MSHSL. of St. Board OTIS, Justice. (Ramsey Education County Dist.Ct. No. challenges, Appellant Striebel 421814, 25, August 1977). Appellant Strie- protection grounds, constitutionality the bel intervened in action and filed a 126.21, (1980), subd. 5 autho- party complaint against respondent. third play high rizing for original The action was prior dismissed separated school athletic teams or substan- trial. separated according to sex. The trial tially (1978) Minn.Stat. 126.21 was amended § lack of court determined the permits after the close of the trial and the swimming tennis and facilities made it nec- scheduling practices at issue. sports essary to schedule these in two sea- sons, separating by League and that teams The High Minnesota School State achieving was a reasonable means of maxi- was established in 1916 as col- voluntary a participation by high mum both sexes in the promo- lection of Minnesota for the schools It program. sports. majority school athletic concluded that tion of amateur The policy High public of the Minnesota private State Minnesota and schools are (MSHSL) establishing League sepa- League School playing members. establishes boys sports rate seasons for in tennis and seasons for arranges various swimming compli- enough is constitutional and in tournaments at state level when (1978), ancе both with have Minn.Stat. schools an § demonstrated interest. 18,1980, and as amended Act of March c. Girls’ scope athletics came within the 1980 Minn.Laws 40. We hold that un- activities around since program der the narrow factual circumstances then has grown enormously. presented, scheduling policies of The first state tennis tоurnament do not rise to level of consti- MSHSL a was in the held fall state tutional violation. We therefore need not swimming meets were initiated in the fall constitutionality decide issue of of 1975. State tennis tournaments for the statute. began traditionally and have been history

A of previous litigation spring. Boys’ short on held in the mеets Striebel, bemay helpful. this matter et traditionally been held since Education, al., al. v. St. Paul et spon- Board of in the winter. scheduled The MSHSL Dist.Ct., (Ramsey No. County sors state tennis and touma- contends alternative fall, Appellant a girls’ teams in for the ments boys in the ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‍dividing tournament existed for athletes be- methods tournament fоr winter, state tennis and a recognize that nei- tween two seasons. We League presently spring. in the by the MSHSL nor ther the solution chosen a coed for- tournaments four sponsors espoused by appellant alternatives golf. A track, cross-country and skiing, mat: disadvantages. Experts testified without *3 meet that thе state tournament means coed segregation effects of sex on to the harmful season for both in the same is scheduled men in their work and social women and events are boys’ and the sexes sta- relationships, and on women’s economic competition girls In the actual alternated. development. Respon- tus and later career compete against girls compete assertion that are not disadvan- dent’s against boys. they opportunity have the to taged, because (1980) pro- not does spring boys’ teams in the compete on two teams. Where co-educational hibit tournamеnts, dispositive is not and fall provided, one of the sport in one teams seek coeduca- Appellant the issue. does not to “members of a may be restricted teams teams, acknowledging physiolog- tional opportunities athletic whose overall among men and women ical differences Id., limited.” subd. previously been have separate teams for the time necessary make there 3(4). generally mean that This will provide girls athletic being to girls only;1 one team restricted to will be case, being the it should opportunity. That members of both open team is to the other separate be noted that treatment of the sexes. nearly equal possible, must be as teams principle of constitu 1. It is a basic separation allowed to the extent any consti courts will avoid tional law that provide equal to ath- absolutely necessary to except with reference question tutional opportunity participants. letic for all it is to be facts to which particular Federa e.g., Alabama State applied. See Appellant suggested has not 450, 65 McAdory, 325 U.S. tion of Labor v. unequally any way in teams are treated (1945). With this 89 L.Ed. 1725 S.Ct. seasons, rules, game regarding length of mind, made clear it should be principle in programs. coaching, money spent or on the We do not court does not decide. what this only allegation is that teams are constitutionally per that would be hold it While we placed in a season. were ade to have missible condone a solution which benefit- could not The evidence facilities available.2 quate expense of the more recent ed at pool and that access to was uncontroverted season is so sub- girls’ programs, neither high was limited in tennis courts stantially deny than the other as to better accommodate way no feasible to schools and the laws. equal protection of the same season girls’ teams in boys’ and an problem to this is The solution existed. the limited fac We hold that under uniquely within decision administrative presented, practice situation tual Regents of Uni competence of educators. substantially separat scheduling two teams Bakke, v. 438 U.S. versity of California according permissible is a schedul ed (1978); Attor 750 57 L.Ed.2d 98 S.Ct. make. ing for the MSHSL to decision Interscholas v. Massachusetts ney General argument in that coed While we concur Association, Mass. 393 378 tic Athletic preferable athletic ucational (Mass.1979). 284 N.E.2d sex). opportunities Contra, for the Id. at 663- Interscholas- ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‍athletic v. Rhоde Island 1. Gomes (D.R.I.), League, F.Supp. 64. 659 vacated tic 469 (1st 1979) grounds, Cir. other 604 F.2d opportunities (interpreting phrase “separate equal” question “athletic but 2. of whether previous- scrutiny for members of that sex [which] could withstand constitutional teams is regard particular ly us, to the been limited” is unneces- before and such а decision not question sport adjudication sary rather than overall and team this action. to an WAHL, sex-segregated programs, respondent is Justice (dissenting part). constitutionally to offer a compelled not I respectfully dissent holding from the two format. gender-neutral Case No. 51940. separately from thаt appeals The State 126.21, 5 (1980), Minn.Stat. subd. per- § requiring below part pay order it mitting competition or tournaments transcript, the cost of a trial ordered assigned to be are separate seasons that preparation sex, use in respondent on the basis of allows a classification brief, copies and the cost post-trial solely upon gender of based thus triggers review depositions Equal not at under the discovery four used trial. Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of United Although juris case no in this Reed, States Reed Constitution. 404 U.S. has discussed the award of costs of diction (1971). 92 S.Ct. 30 L.Ed.2d 225 transcript prepare post-trial guarantees used to That clause “[n]o *4 * * * briefs, the shall deny any person law is well-settled that amounts to its within jurisdiction equal protection the paid transcript purpose the the of of the for for scheduling separate laws.” In but making a motion for a new trial not play seasons of and tournaments in tennis рarty. Wadleigh taxable to the other See swimming schools, and for its member the Co., 415, Railway v. Duluth 92 Street Minn. League acts under the of color state law. (1904). 100 362 v. N.W. Salo Duluth and Independent See 742, Brenden v. 477 School Co., 361, 145 Range Iron Railroad 124 Minn. (8th 1973). Therefore, F.2d 1295 Cir. (1914), 114 N.W. this court held that the ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‍the court must carefully scrutinize this gen- daily a transcript cost of trial obtained for der-based classification. attorney during of the trial convenience is not a taxable disbursement. “If we rule The Supreme United States has Court point, we plaintiff may as desires on this by gender determined that “classifications transcript a in every important objec- look for tо tax almost must serve governmental tried.” at 145 at tives must substantially case Id. N.W. and be to related objectives.” achievement of policy Craig The reasons stated in Salo were cited those Boren, 190, 197, 451, 456, 429 approval Miller U.S. 97 with in v. Commissioner of S.Ct. (1976). 50 L.Ed.2d 397 Taxation, Administrative ease (1954), 242 Minn. 64 N.W.2d 1 and sufficiently convenience are not impor- we where held that the costs incurred in tant objectives justify gender-based to clas- obtaining a transcript for use before the sifications. Id. at S.Ct. at 457. appeals of board tax were not taxable against losing party. We therefore re argues, The appellant majority and the portion that trial verse of the cоurt’s order the argument, concurs in that coeducational the transcript which awards the costs of to preferable sex-seg- to respondent. regated programs. majority The specifical- ly does it not hold that would be constitu- dealing As case no Minnesota tionally permissible sea- depositiоn appears be point, costs on sons where facilities are available. court trial was free to determine whether The adequacy decision turns deposition “necessary” costs were items facilities. (1980). under The majority accepts con- copies discovery award of costs of the girls’ swimming tention that the and boys’ depositions being within the discretion of and tennis be tournaments must scheduled court, it the trial will not be reversed ex its separately because member cept for a clear abuse of discretion. Ro enough pools schools do not have and tennis Partners, main v. Pebble Creek 310 N.W.2d courts to accommodate one season all the (Minn.1981). 123-24 We affirm the boys girls wish participate and who discovery award costs. those sports. participation by Maximum Reversed in part, part. girls affirmed in both and and tennis adjustments changes. appel- such As League has objective. The important anis notes, League completely changed demonstrated, however, scheduling lant not the format of its tennis tournaments when way feasible seasons is the into A and AA classes. clear from it divided schools objective. It was achieve that facilities, the tourna- change This doubled the size of adequacy оf evidence that expressly to increase are con- ments and was made play practice as seasonal far participation. schools cerned, problem in out-state is no prob- is no and, particular, Segregation by gender has an adverse Range area. Iron metropоlitan in the lem swimming. Be- effect on tennis and earlier, in the 1924- participated schools traditionally been boys’ cause tennis has operated period spring, girls’ scheduled in the tennis is rele- in the same girls’ programs boys’ their The results are gated to the fall season. area, St. metropolitan Even in the seasоn. tennis begin must their season Wayne re- athletic director Gilliland year begins before the school and that their admitted, guess always “I I would luctantly may by early be cut short winter pos- was a swimming probably believe do not suffer these dis- weather. * * * because we do have sibility New, advantages. less-experienced coaches Availability of tennis courts is con- pools.” likely assigned to the are also more to be Phillips, an assistant by Dr. James sidered According teams. sup- statistics to be an administrative superintendent, plied by Department the Athletic the St. by leasing is solvable courts problem which Schools, average experience Paul Public *5 management is also necessary. Facilities if assigned years; of coaches is facili- Essentially the same court crucial. average experience assigned coaches Highland by used ties were St. years. is 4.5 players tennis coach to handle 12 to 15 Park importantly, segregation by gender More coach to handle by the Paul Johnson St. long-term Experts has adverse effects. that, appears players. to 50 tennis It Dorothy such psychologist as Loeffler and concerned, par- even as far as the Rothchild, Nina executive director of the by more lack of аssist- ticipation is limited Women, Council on the Economic Status of ability to sched- by coaches than lack of ant segregation testified at trial that sex more existing facilities to accommodate ule materially contributes participants. failure of both men and women to work Further, League has not demonstrat- situations, together as well as to in career swimming and tennis ed that the division of occupational segregation and the lower gender substantially is re- by tournaments economic status of women. Sex bias does objective assuring the availa- lated to its and, according exist in the schools to Dr. tо as bility of tennis and serve to re- Phillips, coed athletic activities by inad- possible or necessitated students duce this bias. Freeman, Jean A. A. U. equate facilities. facilities or the Schools the women’s swim- coach and head coach of will their and resources to use facilities Minnesota, ming University teаm at the by creatively who wish to reduce bias conducting experience extensive who had providing coeducation meets, proposals for run- gave coed detailed They tennis will to do so. be unable A ning a coed tournament. forced into is also feasi- coed tennis tournament assignment sеx-based of courts and time needed ble. The number seasons. This classification serves no im- kept can be the same such a tournament portant governmental interest on a state- outstate at by playing more rounds upheld wide basis and cannot be under the players advance to the regional lеvel before re- Craig v. Boren constitutional standard separate-season state level. Under lating gender-based discrimination. format, outstate. played one round is make I would reverse. ability have the League does TODD, (dissenting). Justice join Wahl. in the dissent of Justice

I

YETKA, (dissenting). Justice join Justice Wahl. in the dissent of

I

SCOTT, (dissenting). Justice join Justice in the dissent of Wahl.

I Marriage Matter of Diane (now Montgom

TISCHENDORF Diane petitioner, Appellant,

ery), TISCHENDORF, Respondent,

Peter Hempel, Appellant.

William J.

No. 51615.

Supreme of Minnesota. Court