Boucher v. Syracuse University
42 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 659, 164 F.3d 113, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 90 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Title IX accommodation claim seeking the establishment of a women's varsity sports team becomes moot once the university fully implements that team, but a district court abuses its discretion by failing to certify appropriate subclasses when potential conflicts of interest exist among class members seeking different sports, rather than dismissing an entire subclass, especially where the requested sport has not yet been fully established. Additionally, non-varsity athletes lack standing to bring equal treatment claims concerning benefits and scholarships for varsity athletes.
Facts:
- Syracuse University's student population was just over 50% female when the complaint was filed in May 1995.
- In the 1993-94 academic year, women constituted only 32.4% (217 out of 681) of Syracuse's varsity athletes, reflecting a 19% disparity between female student enrollment and female varsity athletic participation.
- In May 1995, Syracuse University funded eleven men’s varsity teams and nine women’s varsity teams.
- For fourteen years, from 1982 until the complaint was filed in 1995, Syracuse University had not added any new women's varsity teams.
- Just prior to the lawsuit's filing, Syracuse announced plans to add women's varsity soccer (starting 1996-97 academic year) and women's varsity lacrosse (starting 1997-98 academic year).
- During the litigation, Syracuse announced plans to institute a varsity women’s softball team, projected to begin play in the 1999-2000 academic year.
- The plaintiffs, former female club athletes, including members of the club lacrosse and club softball teams, desired varsity status for their respective sports.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 1995, former female club athletes (plaintiffs) filed suit against Syracuse University in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging numerous Title IX violations for unequal participation opportunities, unequal benefits, and unequal scholarship funding for female athletes.
- On June 12, 1996, the District Court granted summary judgment to Syracuse University on plaintiffs’ equal treatment claims (regarding unequal benefits and scholarships for varsity athletes) for lack of standing because none of the named plaintiffs were varsity athletes.
- On June 12, 1996 (in a separate order), the District Court conditionally certified a class of 'current and future would-be varsity lacrosse players' but denied certification for a class of 'would-be varsity softball players,' citing potential conflicts of interest due to finite resources. The court also certified a class for club athletes' equal treatment claim, which plaintiffs had not raised.
- On April 3, 1998, the District Court granted summary judgment to Syracuse University on plaintiffs’ accommodation claim (for unequal participation opportunities), finding that Syracuse met the requirements of a 'safe harbor' defense under Title IX regulations due to a 'continued practice of program expansion responsive to the abilities and interests of its student body.'
- Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's April 3, 1998 summary judgment and the two June 12, 1996 orders (dismissal of equal treatment claims and conditional class certification) 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:
1. Is a Title IX accommodation claim seeking the establishment of a women's varsity sports team rendered moot once the university implements that team? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to certify a subclass of women interested in playing varsity softball, despite finding potential conflicts with other athletes' interests, where the sport had not yet been fully implemented? 3. Do non-varsity athletes have standing to assert Title IX equal treatment claims regarding the allocation of benefits and scholarships for varsity athletes?
Opinions:
Majority - CALABRESI, Circuit Judge
1. Yes, the claim seeking a varsity women’s lacrosse team is moot because Syracuse University already implemented the team, and it is participating in intercollegiate play, leaving no ongoing controversy for injunctive relief. The court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint to add a damages claim because it was introduced late in the litigation, and plaintiffs' counsel had previously indicated no ongoing controversy if the teams were established. 2. Yes, the district court abused its discretion by refusing to certify a subclass for current and future women interested in playing varsity softball. While the district court correctly identified potential conflicts of interest among class members interested in different sports due to finite resources, the proper solution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) is to create separate subclasses for each sport, not to exclude one entirely. As the varsity softball team had not yet begun play, this claim was not moot. The court chose not to rule on the merits of Syracuse’s safe harbor defense, instead remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the claim if the University establishes the varsity softball team by the stated 1999-2000 academic year; otherwise, the district court must certify the class and revisit the merits. 3. No, the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' equal treatment claims regarding benefits and scholarships for varsity athletes for lack of standing was proper, as none of the named plaintiffs were varsity athletes. Furthermore, the district court erred by certifying and ruling on a claim concerning the allocation of funds between male and female club teams, as plaintiffs never raised this claim in their complaint nor pursued it; a court cannot create and then decide a cause of action not brought by the parties. The court also declined to consider a broader class representing all women interested in varsity athletics generally, as this issue was not clearly presented in the complaint or during the litigation.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Title IX's accommodation requirements regarding participation opportunities, particularly concerning mootness and class certification in the context of institutional promises of program expansion. It emphasizes that a court must create subclasses to address potential conflicts of interest among class members rather than dismissing an entire group, thereby ensuring broader access to justice. The ruling highlights the strategic importance of early and explicit pleading of damages and broad class definitions in Title IX litigation to avoid mootness and to advance claims effectively. It also reinforces the standing requirement for specific Title IX claims.
