Case Law Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ.

Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ.

Document Cited Authorities (35) Cited in (11) Related

928 F.Supp.2d 414

Stephanie BIEDIGER, Kayla Lawler, Erin Overdevest, Kristen Corinaldesi, and Logan Riker, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and Robin Lamott Sparks, individually, Plaintiffs,

v.QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

No. 3:09–cv–621 (SRU).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

March 4, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Alex V. Hernandez, Jonathan B. Orleans, Pullman & Comley, Bridgeport, CT, David J. McGuire, Sandra J. Staub, American Civil Liberties Union, Hartford, CT, Kristen Galles, Alexandria, VA, Lewis H. Chimes, Law Office of Lewis Chimes LLC, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew E. Rice, Edward A. Brill, Rebecca L. Berkebile, Susan D. Friedfel, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, Mary A. Gambardella, Wiggin & Dana LLP, Stamford, CT, for Defendant.

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO LIFT INJUNCTION

STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Introduction                              ¦418 ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Findings of Fact                          ¦419 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Women's Golf                                              ¦420    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Women's Acrobatics and Tumbling (Formerly Competitive     ¦420    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Cheer)                                                    ¦       ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦Women's Rugby                                             ¦425    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦D.  ¦Women's Indoor and Outdoor Track                          ¦428    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦E.  ¦Quinnipiac's Counting of Athletic Participants            ¦430    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Standard of Review                                     ¦433   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A. ¦Standard for Modifying or Dissolving Injunctions¦433  ¦
+----+---+------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦    ¦B. ¦Title IX: Statutory and Regulatory Background   ¦435  ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Statute                         ¦435 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The Regulations                     ¦435 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦The Policy Interpretation           ¦436 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦The Three–Part Test               ¦438 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦The Levels–of–Competition Test    ¦439 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦The Policy Clarifications           ¦440 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦Substantial Proportionality (Prong One of the     ¦440    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Three–Part Test)                                  ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.  ¦“Participants” Defined                 ¦440    ¦
+----+---+---+---+----+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii. ¦“Participation Opportunities” Defined  ¦442    ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦Equivalent Competition (Prong One of the          ¦446    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Levels–of– Competition Test)                      ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c. ¦Summary                                           ¦451    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦Conclusions of Law                        ¦452 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Substantial Proportionality (Prong One of the Three–Part  ¦453    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Test)                                                     ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦1.¦Countable “Participation Opportunities”  ¦453   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Women's Golf                      ¦453 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Women's Acro                      ¦454 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦i.    ¦Recognition by the NCAA or Other Authorities  ¦455    ¦
+----+---+--+--+------+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦ii.   ¦Intrinsic Factors                             ¦456    ¦
+----+---+--+--+------+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦iii.  ¦Extrinsic Factors                             ¦456    ¦
+----+---+--+--+------+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦iv.   ¦Conclusion                                    ¦457    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦c.¦Women's Rugby                     ¦458 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦i.    ¦Recognition by the NCAA or Other Authorities  ¦458    ¦
+----+---+--+--+------+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦ii.   ¦Intrinsic Factors                             ¦459    ¦
+----+---+--+--+------+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦iii.  ¦Extrinsic Factors                             ¦459    ¦
+----+---+--+--+------+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦iv.   ¦Conclusion                                    ¦462    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦d.¦Women's Indoor and Outdoor Track  ¦463 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦i.   ¦Runners Who Were Injured and Did Not Compete   ¦464    ¦
+----+---+--+--+-----+-----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦ii.  ¦Runners Who Quit the Team and Did Not Compete  ¦465    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦2.¦Calculating “Substantial Proportionality”  ¦466   ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦Equivalent Competition (Prong One of the                  ¦467    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Levels–of–Competition Test)                               ¦       ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦Equitable Considerations                                  ¦471    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+
¦  ¦                            ¦   ¦
+--+----------------------------+---¦
¦V.¦Conclusion                  ¦473¦
+-----------------------------------+
I. Introduction

The year 2012 marked the fortieth anniversary of the sex discrimination statute known as Title IX. See Education Amendments of 1972, Pub.L. No. 92–318, Title IX, §§ 901–907, 86 Stat. 235, 373–375 (codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.). Born of congressional concerns about “ ‘massive, persistent patterns of discrimination against women in the academic world,’ ” McCormick v. Sch. Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275, 286 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting 118 CONG. REC. 5804 (1972) (statement of Sen. Bayh)), the law prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funds from engaging in sex-based discrimination in the programs and activities they sponsor, including athletics. In the two score years since its enactment, Title IX has marshaled significant change in public attitudes about, and opportunities for, women in sport. Yet despite that progress, “Title IX has not ended the long history of discrimination...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2021
Anders v. California State University, 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM
"... ... (scholarships) and (2) equal athletic opportunity ... Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ. , 928 F.Supp.2d 414, 435 ... (D. Conn. 2013) (“Biediger I”) ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2021
Anders v. Cal. State Univ.
"... ... § 106.41(c)(1); and (3) ... “equal-treatment” claims, see 34 C.F.R ... § 106.41(c)(2)-(10). See Biediger v. Quinnipiac ... Univ. , 928 F.Supp.2d 414, 436 (D. Conn. 2013). Each of ... these is “a separate and distinct type of claim, to be ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2017
Biasi v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
".... We rely on it here to the extent that it provides a persuasive explanation of the Policy Interpretation."); Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ., 928 F. Supp. 2d 414, 447 (D. Conn. 2013) (stating that a Title IX Athletics Investigator's Manual "is not entitled to the same level of deference accor..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island – 2013
Governor & Co. v. Wasserman
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut – 2021
Lazor v. University of Connecticut
"...athletic participation, were the causes of the disparity in their athletic participation opportunities. Biediger v. Quinnipiac University , 928 F. Supp. 2d 414, 467 (D.Conn. 2013). On the contrary, UConn's historical data further suggests that the university is not now, and has not been sin..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2021
Anders v. California State University, 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM
"... ... (scholarships) and (2) equal athletic opportunity ... Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ. , 928 F.Supp.2d 414, 435 ... (D. Conn. 2013) (“Biediger I”) ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2021
Anders v. Cal. State Univ.
"... ... § 106.41(c)(1); and (3) ... “equal-treatment” claims, see 34 C.F.R ... § 106.41(c)(2)-(10). See Biediger v. Quinnipiac ... Univ. , 928 F.Supp.2d 414, 436 (D. Conn. 2013). Each of ... these is “a separate and distinct type of claim, to be ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2017
Biasi v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
".... We rely on it here to the extent that it provides a persuasive explanation of the Policy Interpretation."); Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ., 928 F. Supp. 2d 414, 447 (D. Conn. 2013) (stating that a Title IX Athletics Investigator's Manual "is not entitled to the same level of deference accor..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island – 2013
Governor & Co. v. Wasserman
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut – 2021
Lazor v. University of Connecticut
"...athletic participation, were the causes of the disparity in their athletic participation opportunities. Biediger v. Quinnipiac University , 928 F. Supp. 2d 414, 467 (D.Conn. 2013). On the contrary, UConn's historical data further suggests that the university is not now, and has not been sin..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.