McCormick ex rel. Geldwert v. School District of Mamaroneck
370 F.3d 275 (2004)
Rule of Law:
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires schools receiving federal financial assistance to provide equal athletic opportunities for both sexes. A disparity in a single program component, such as the scheduling of games and post-season competition, can constitute a Title IX violation if it is substantial enough to deny equality of athletic opportunity, and is not offset by comparable advantages to the disadvantaged sex or justified by legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors.
Facts:
- The New York State Public High School Athletic Association (NYSPHSAA) organizes interscholastic sports, and the Regional and State Championships for soccer are scheduled at the end of the fall season.
- The School District of Mamaroneck and the School District of Pelham (“School Districts”) schedule girls' high school soccer in the spring season and boys' high school soccer in the fall season.
- Because girls' soccer is scheduled in the spring, girls on the Pelham and Mamaroneck teams cannot compete in the Regional or State Championships, even if they win their Section I spring league championships.
- Boys on the Pelham and Mamaroneck soccer teams compete in the fall season and have the opportunity to participate in the Regional and State Championships.
- Girls' soccer is the only sport at the Pelham and Mamaroneck high schools scheduled in a season that precludes championship game play.
- Katherine McCormick, a student at Pelham High School, and Emily Geldwert, a student at Mamaroneck High School, are soccer players who want to compete in the Regional and State Championships and have stipulated that they would play for their high school teams if girls' soccer were moved to the fall.
- Girls who play high school soccer in the spring face conflicts with the Olympic Development Program (ODP) and high-level club soccer tournaments, which are typically scheduled in the spring assuming high school soccer is in the fall, potentially leading to over-scheduling, missed practices, and increased injury risk.
- The School Districts cited various reasons for the spring schedule, including the popularity of girls' field hockey, concerns about insufficient field space in the fall, the need to hire additional coaches and officials, and a desire to avoid forcing girls to choose between soccer and other fall sports.
Procedural Posture:
- Barry McCormick (on behalf of his daughter Katherine) and Josef Geldwert (on behalf of his daughter Emily) filed a lawsuit in April 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the School District of Mamaroneck and the School District of Pelham.
- Plaintiffs initially moved for a preliminary injunction ordering the School Districts to move girls' soccer to the fall, which the District Court denied.
- After a trial on stipulated facts, the District Court found that the School Districts' decision to schedule girls' but not boys' soccer in the spring season violated Title IX, and held that plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The District Court ordered each School District to develop a plan to offer soccer to men and women in the same season and stayed the judgment pending 'appellate finality'.
- The School Districts appealed the District Court's judgment 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 school district's practice of scheduling girls' high school soccer in the spring season and boys' high school soccer in the fall season, which deprives girls but not boys of the opportunity to compete in the New York Regional and State Championships, violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972?
Opinions:
Majority - Straub, Circuit Judge
Yes, a school district's practice of scheduling girls' high school soccer in the spring season while boys' soccer is in the fall, which deprives girls but not boys of the opportunity to compete in the New York Regional and State Championships, violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The court affirmed the District Court's finding of a Title IX violation, applying 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) and its accompanying Policy Interpretation, to which it accorded substantial deference. The Policy Interpretation identifies "scheduling of games and practice time" as a factor in determining equal athletic opportunity, specifically including "opportunities to engage in available pre-season and post-season competition." The court found that denying girls the chance to compete in Regional and State Championships, while boys have this opportunity, creates a clear disparity with a negative impact on girls. This disparity was deemed "substantial enough" to deny equality of athletic opportunity, especially since it was not offset by any comparable advantage to girls in other aspects of the athletics program. The court rejected the School Districts' justifications—such as administrative burdens (field space, coaches, officials), forcing girls to choose between sports, or the popularity of field hockey—as insufficient to warrant the unequal treatment. Citing Cohen v. Brown University, the court also dismissed the argument that girls' lack of interest in championships justifies the disparity, noting that interest often evolves with opportunity and that Title IX was enacted to remedy discrimination resulting from stereotyped notions of women's interests and abilities. The court modified the District Court's injunction to allow for either a permanent move of girls' soccer to the fall or a rational alternating schedule, provided girls' soccer is scheduled in the fall for the upcoming 2004-2005 school year.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Title IX's 'equal athletic opportunity' mandate, demonstrating that specific disparities in competitive opportunities, not merely overall participation numbers, can constitute a violation. It establishes that schools cannot easily justify unequal treatment based on administrative convenience (e.g., field space, coach availability) or perceived lack of student interest, especially when such interest may be conditioned by historical discrimination. The ruling reinforces the principle that denying championship opportunities to one sex for a specific sport, without corresponding offsets in other areas, represents a substantial harm that triggers Title IX liability, compelling schools to re-evaluate scheduling and other seemingly minor differences that have significant impacts on athletic experience and development.
