Title IX Cases

Question 1

Daniels v. School Board of Brevard County
Facts
Rule

Answer 1

Facts: Plaintiffs sue Defendant on claims violating Title IX and the FL Act
-disparities b/t boys’ baseball and girls’ softball
-plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunction
Rule:
1. Title IX (106.41 (c))
-Equal Treatment Claim (106.41 (c)(2))
2. The Fl Act
3. Preliminary Injunction: must show all 4 parts

Question 2

Daniels v. School Board of Brevard County

Reason

Answer 2

1: facility inequalities

-disparity implicates: provision of (1) equip and supplies, (2) schedule of games and practice times, (3) practice and competition facilities, (4) training facilities, and (5) publicity
-defendant says it provides equal finding (booster clubs)
-claims it cant be responsible if fundraising activities of 1 booster club are more successful than others
COURT REJECTS THIS CLAIM
#2: inequality sends clear message that boys are more important then girls
#3: public at large will benefit from shift to equal treatment

Question 3

Danieals v. School Board of Brevard County

Holding

Answer 3

Holding - preliminary injunction is granted

• defendant seeks to avoid liability on basis it provides equal funding
  
  • cant do that, it’s defendant’s responsibility
• defendant’s responsibility to ensure equal opportunity for athletics in accordance to Title IX

Question 4

Mercer v. Duke University
Facts
Issue
Rule

Answer 4

Facts:
-plaintiff challenging fed court’s decision that Title IX provides a blanket exception for contact sports
-plaintiff tried out for Duke as walk-on kicker, didnt make team
-participation in intersquad scrimmage, kicks game-winning field goal
-coach told media plaintiff was on team and kicking coach personally told plaintiff
-plaintiff officially listed on team and filed with NCAA
-plaintiff alleges she was discriminated against by defendant
-1996 season - coach told plaintiff he was dropping her and excluded her from all activities
Issue:
are contact sports, such as fb, specifically excluded from Title IX coverage?
Rule:
C.F.R. Section 106.41 (b))

Question 5

Mercer v. Duke University
Reason
Appeal

Answer 5

Reason -
-per subsection (b):
-bc plaintiff alleged that Duke had allowed her to tryout, discrimination against her and ultimately excluded her from part. in sport on basis of sex
-it is concluded that plaintiff stated a claim under applicable regulation, therefore under Title IX
Appeal - reversed and remanded

Question 6

Boucher v. Syracuse
Facts
Issue
Rule

Answer 6

Facts -
-former female club athletes allege numerous violations of Title IX against defendant
1. Equal protection claim - want injunction to order defendant to provide equal benefits and scholarships to varsity m and f athletes
2. Accommodations claim - want injunction to establish varsity lax and sb teams for women
Issue -
Did defendant violate Title IX and its regulations?
Rule -
Equal Treatment Claim (scholarships and financial)
Accommodation claim

Question 7

Boucher v. Syracuse

Reason

Answer 7

1. Equal Treatment Claim -
   
   • plaintiffs did not have standing (must prove you’re the one being injured to bring claim)
   • bc none of the plaintiffs were named varsity athletes, their claim was dismissed
2. Accommodation - 2nd safe harbor
   
   1. had strong history of adding womens’ sport programs
   2. funded additional scholarships and provided enhanced facilities, coaching, and sport services for f. athletes
   3. b/t ‘82-‘95, # of f. part. in varsity sports increased from 148 to 217
   4. established 2 new varsity womens teams since ‘95 and planned to add one for ‘99-‘00 season

Question 8

Boucher v. Syracuse

Appeal

Answer 8

Appeal -

• gender enrollment and part. breakdown (substantial proportionality) = not good
• defendant added varsity lax = no claim anymore
• Equal treatment = agree with district court; no standing
• Accommodation =
  
  1. lax team implements - claim is now moot
  2. sb team - plan to implement team in future
     
     • remand case; defendant must prove they implemented the sport
     • if proved, case is moot
     • if disproved, plaintiff can go forward with claim and would use 2nd safe harbor of defense if moving forward

Question 9

Boulahanis v. Board of Regents
Facts
Issue

Answer 9

Facts:
-fall ‘93, defendant undertook investigation of gender equity and Title IX compliance
-bc w. sport had not been added in past 10 yrs, it would not fit that safe harbor
-instead, defendant focused on achieving substantial proportionality
-considered 10 options and chose option #10: addition of w soccer and elim m soccer and wrestling
-implementation made part. w/in 3% to become in compliance with Title IX’s 1st safe harbor
-plaintiffs contend defendant’s decision to elim. programs they part. in was based on sex and therefore a violation of Title IX
Issue:
-was defendant’s decision made on basis of sex that violated plaintiff’s Title IX rights?

Question 10

Boulahanis v. Board of Regents
Rule
Reason
Appeal

Answer 10

Rule:
-Title IX, Kelley v. Board of Trustees
Reason:
-both decisions in this case and Kelley were based on combo of financial and sex-based concerns that are not easily distinguishable
-court determines plaintiffs would be no better off than they are under existing law
- court concludes plaintiffs’ distinction would put universities in an unmanageable position, it rejects plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish Kelley
-elim. of m programs is not a violation of Title IX as long as m. participation in athl. cont. to be substantially proportionate to their enrollment
Appeal:
-affirmed
-cant use budget concerns to cut teams and still need to be in compliance with Title IX
-after cutting teams, defendant still in compliance with Title IX substantial proportionality eventho they cut programs
-cant add more w teams bc of budget, but can drop programs to comply with Title IX