Biediger v. Quinnipiac University
2012 WL 3176285, 691 F.3d 85 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title IX requires educational institutions receiving federal funds to provide equal athletic opportunities, which is assessed, in part, by whether intercollegiate participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments, where only “real, not illusory” opportunities are counted.
Facts:
- In March 2009, Quinnipiac University announced its intention to eliminate its women’s volleyball team, men’s golf, and men’s outdoor track and field teams, while simultaneously creating a new varsity sports team for women’s competitive cheerleading for the 2009-10 academic year.
- During the 2009-10 academic year, Quinnipiac’s women’s cross-country team had 18 athletes, and these same 18 women were also listed on the women’s indoor track and women’s outdoor track team rosters, each of which listed 30 athletes.
- Quinnipiac required its women’s cross-country runners to join the indoor and outdoor track teams as a condition of their participation on the cross-country team, a requirement not imposed on male cross-country runners.
- Out of the women required to join the track teams, 11 (5 for indoor track, 6 for outdoor track) were injured or 'red-shirted' and thus unable to compete, receiving no benefits from track team membership beyond those they already received as injured or red-shirted cross-country athletes.
- Quinnipiac’s new women’s competitive cheerleading team, with 30 roster positions, participated in 10 regular season competitions during the 2009-10 season, which were judged according to 5 different scoring systems.
- The competitive cheerleading team did not compete exclusively against other varsity intercollegiate competitive cheerleading teams, but against a mix of collegiate club opponents, collegiate sideline cheerleading teams, and all-star opponents.
- Competitive cheerleading lacked a progressive playoff system leading to a championship, instead featuring an open invitational that introduced new competition rules for post-season play, including a mandatory 'spirit' segment, that had not applied during the regular season.
- In the 2009-10 academic year, 61.87% of Quinnipiac’s undergraduate population were female, while Quinnipiac claimed 62.27% of its varsity athletes were female.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 2009, Quinnipiac University announced its decision to eliminate its women’s volleyball team.
- In April 2009, plaintiffs (five women’s volleyball players and their coach) filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, charging Title IX violations and seeking an injunction to prevent the elimination of the women’s volleyball team.
- The District Court (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge) granted a preliminary injunction, preventing Quinnipiac from withdrawing support from its volleyball team, finding that Quinnipiac systematically and artificially manipulated rosters to appear Title IX compliant.
- The District Court subsequently certified a plaintiff class of all present and future female Quinnipiac students harmed by the alleged Title IX discrimination.
- In June 2010, the District Court conducted a bench trial on plaintiffs’ claim of disproportionate allocation of athletic participation opportunities.
- The District Court issued a detailed memorandum of decision, finding in favor of plaintiffs and granting permanent injunctive relief, including an order for Quinnipiac to submit a plan to comply and continue the women's volleyball team for the 2010-11 athletic season.
- Quinnipiac University appealed the permanent injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 violate Title IX by failing to provide substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities to female students when it counts as participants (1) injured or red-shirted cross-country runners who are required to join indoor/outdoor track teams without receiving distinct additional benefits, and (2) competitive cheerleaders for a nascent program lacking uniform rules and structured competition?
Opinions:
Majority - Raggi, Circuit Judge
No, a university violates Title IX when it fails to provide substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities to female students, especially when it inflates participation numbers by counting illusory spots, such as those for injured/red-shirted athletes on additional teams who receive no distinct benefits, or for activities that do not yet qualify as genuine varsity sports due to lack of established rules and competitive structure. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of a Title IX violation. The court held that the district court correctly excluded 11 roster positions from the women's indoor and outdoor track teams. These positions were held by cross-country runners who were required to join the track teams but were injured or red-shirted and thus could not compete or receive benefits distinct from their cross-country affiliation. These opportunities were deemed 'truly illusory' and a method to 'pad rosters,' citing the 1996 OCR Letter's 'real, not illusory' standard. The court also upheld the exclusion of all 30 competitive cheerleading positions. Although Quinnipiac administered the team similar to other varsity sports in some respects, the court found it did not meet the 'touchstones' of a varsity sport as outlined by OCR's 2008 Letter and prior guidance. Key deficiencies included the absence of off-campus recruitment, lack of a uniform set of competition rules (using five different systems in a single season), competition against a 'motley assortment' of non-varsity opponents, and a post-season structure without progressive playoffs or consistent rules, which included a 'spirit' segment more characteristic of sideline cheerleading. Based on these adjusted numbers, the court found a 3.62% disparity between female enrollment (61.87%) and female athletic participation (58.25%). While acknowledging this was a 'borderline case,' the court concluded this disparity established a Title IX violation because it was largely attributable to Quinnipiac's voluntary actions (e.g., roster control, not uncontrollable enrollment fluctuations) and was reasonably remediable. The needed 38 additional female athletic opportunities were sufficient to field a viable team, specifically noting the eliminated women's volleyball team as an existing example.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standards for counting athletic participation opportunities under Title IX's proportionality prong, emphasizing the need for 'real, not illusory' opportunities and preventing institutions from artificially inflating numbers for compliance. It provides a detailed framework for assessing whether emerging activities, like competitive cheerleading, qualify as 'sports' for Title IX purposes, focusing on established structure, uniform rules, legitimate competition, and a defined season. The ruling also reinforces that even a seemingly 'borderline' statistical disparity can constitute a Title IX violation if it is largely within the institution's control and reasonably remediable, thereby encouraging genuine expansion of women's sports programs rather than superficial adjustments.
