Biediger v. Quinnipiac University
616 F. Supp. 2d 277 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A university fails to provide genuine athletic participation opportunities in substantial proportion to enrollment, as required by Title IX, when it manipulates roster numbers by setting artificial floors for women's teams and undercounting male athletes, as such practices create illusory rather than real opportunities.
Facts:
- In the 2008-2009 academic year, Quinnipiac University's undergraduate enrollment was 61.7% female and was projected to be 63% female for the following year.
- In March 2009, Quinnipiac announced it would eliminate the women's varsity volleyball team, men's golf, and men's outdoor track due to budget constraints.
- To maintain Title IX compliance, Quinnipiac simultaneously announced it would elevate its women's competitive cheerleading squad to varsity status.
- Quinnipiac implemented a "roster management" policy, setting target numbers for each team to achieve gender proportionality in athletic participation.
- Several men's teams, including baseball and lacrosse, temporarily removed athletes from their rosters just before the official reporting date for the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) and reinstated them afterward, resulting in an undercount of male participants.
- Coaches of several women's teams, including softball, were required to meet artificially high roster minimums, or "floors."
- The softball coach testified she met her roster target by adding walk-on players whom she later informed would not receive uniforms, equipment, or travel opportunities, leading many of them to quit after the official count was taken.
- The plaintiff volleyball players were recruited student-athletes who had chosen to attend Quinnipiac for the opportunity to compete in their sport at the Division I level.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie Biediger, along with other members and the coach of the women's volleyball team (plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit against Quinnipiac University (defendant) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a federal trial court.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Quinnipiac University from eliminating the women's varsity volleyball team pending a final decision in the case.
- The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction over four days in May 2009.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a university's plan to eliminate a women's varsity team while relying on a roster management policy that inflates the number of female participants and deflates the number of male participants likely fail to satisfy Title IX's requirement to provide athletic participation opportunities in substantial proportion to student enrollment?
Opinions:
Majority - Underhill, J.
Yes, the university's plan likely fails to satisfy Title IX's substantial proportionality requirement. A university's method for counting athletic participation opportunities under Title IX must reflect genuine, not illusory, opportunities. The court found that Quinnipiac's roster management policy created illusory opportunities for women and masked the true number of opportunities for men. Evidence showed that coaches of men's teams manipulated rosters by removing players just before the official count and adding them back afterward. Conversely, coaches of women's teams were forced to meet artificially high roster floors, resulting in players being counted who did not receive a legitimate varsity experience. Because these practices rendered the university's EADA report numbers unreliable, the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that Quinnipiac was not providing athletic opportunities in substantial proportion to its female undergraduate enrollment.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its deep scrutiny into the methods universities use to demonstrate Title IX compliance. The court's ruling establishes that mere statistical proportionality on paper is insufficient; the participation opportunities must be genuine. The decision signals to educational institutions that courts will look behind official roster reports to uncover practices like using roster "floors" for the underrepresented sex or temporary cuts for the overrepresented sex. This creates a precedent that prioritizes the quality and reality of an athletic opportunity over deceptive numerical gamesmanship, impacting how athletic departments nationwide approach roster management and Title IX compliance.
Unlock the full brief for Biediger v. Quinnipiac University