Cooper v. USA Powerlifting

1

JayCee Cooper, Respondent, v. USA Powerlifting, Appellant,

USA Powerlifting Minnesota, Respondent on Related Appeal (A23-0373).

Nos. A23-0373, A23-0621

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

March 18, 2024

Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-21-211

Christy L. Hall, Jess Braverman, Sara Jane Baldwin, Gender Justice, St. Paul, Minnesota; and David E. Schlesinger, Riley Palmer, Nichols Kaster, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Matthew A. Frank, Premo Frank P.L.L.C., Minneapolis Minnesota (for respondent and cross-appellant JayCee Cooper)

Ansis V. Viksnins, Mark J. Carpenter, Mary Cate S. Cicero, Monroe Moxness Berg P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant USA Powerlifting and respondent on related appeal USA Powerlifting Minnesota)

Charles R. Shreffler, Shreffler Law Ltd., Lakeville Minnesota; and Kristine L. Brown (pro hac vice), Shreffler Law Ltd., Denver, Colorado (for amici curiae 83 Female Athletes, Sports Officials, and Parents of Female Athletes) Jason Adkins, Minnesota Catholic Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota Catholic Conference)

Stanley N. Zahorsky, Zahorsky Law Firm, Edina, Minnesota; and William Bock, III (pro hac vice), Kroger, Gardis &Regas, L.L.P., Indianapolis, Indiana (for amicus curiae Independent Council on Women's Sport)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Rachel Bell-Munger, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Rights)

Philip A. Duran, Rainbow Health, St. Paul, Minnesota; and David P. Brown (pro hac vice), Transgender Legal Defense &Education Fund, New York, New York (for amici curiae Group of Transgender Women Athletes)

SYLLABUS

1. The district court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and concluding that defendant is liable to plaintiff on her claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations and in business under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01-.44 (2018), because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant excluded plaintiff from the women's division of its weightlifting competitions because of her transgender status.

2. The district court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and concluding that defendant is liable to plaintiff on her claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex in business under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01-.44 (2018), because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant excluded plaintiff from the women's division of its weightlifting competitions for a legitimate business purpose.

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin, Judge. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Frisch, Judge

OPINION

JOHNSON, Judge

JayCee Cooper is a transgender athlete. She was not allowed to compete in the women's division of powerlifting competitions sponsored by USA Powerlifting (USAPL). Cooper sued, asserting five discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted Cooper's motion for partial summary judgment on three claims, denied her motion with respect to one claim, granted a defense motion for summary judgment on one claim, and sua sponte enjoined USAPL from doing business in Minnesota. USAPL has appealed, and Cooper has crossappealed.

In USAPL's consolidated appeals, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to Cooper's claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation (which is defined by statute to include transgender status). We also conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to USAPL's statutory legitimate-businesspurpose defense to Cooper's claims of discrimination in business. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of Cooper's motion for partial summary judgment on three claims and its orders for injunctive relief. In Cooper's cross-appeal, we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact on Cooper's claim of aiding and abetting discrimination and, accordingly, affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on that claim. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

USAPL is a nationwide organization that sponsors competitions in powerlifting, a strength-based sport in which participants compete in three events: squat, bench press, and deadlift. USAPL was organized in 1981 as The American Drug Free Powerlifting Association, Inc., and one of its core principles is that its competitors must be drug-free. It is a non-profit corporation, with its principal place of business in Alaska. It employs a president and six other employees three of whom work remotely from other states. The organization has approximately 18,000 members and relies on local meet directors to organize local competitions.

Cooper is a transgender woman who resides in Minnesota. She participated in men's sports before transitioning in her 20s and changing her name in 2015 or 2016, when she was approximately 28 years old. She became interested in powerlifting in approximately 2018 and became a member of USAPL later that year.

In November 2018, Cooper submitted to USAPL an application for a therapeutic-use exemption (TUE) from USAPL's drug-free policy. She did so because she wished to compete in the women's division of USAPL competitions in Minnesota in January and February of 2019 while taking spironolactone to treat her gender dysphoria. Cooper's application initially was referred to USAPL's TUE committee, whose members voted to approve it. Cooper's application then was referred to USAPL's executive committee, which determined that Cooper should not be allowed to compete in the women's division.

The executive committee asked the chairperson of the TUE committee, a medical doctor, to communicate the organization's decision to Cooper. On December 5, 2018, the committee chairperson sent Cooper an e-mail message, stating: "The TUE committee has reviewed your request for spironolactone. That request has been denied. Male-to-female transgenders are not allowed to compete as females in our static strength sport as it is a direct competitive advantage. This decision has been made at the IPF [International Powerlifting Federation] level." Cooper responded by asking for additional information about the decision and the IPF policy. After a few additional messages, the committee chairperson explained further by stating, "The fact that transgender male to female individuals have gone through male puberty confers an unfair competitive advantage over non-transgender females due to increased bone density and muscle mass from pubertal exposure to testosterone ...."

In January 2021, Cooper commenced this action against USAPL and a defendant described as USA Powerlifting Minnesota (USAPL-MN).^[1] Her three-count complaint asserts multiple causes of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01-.44 (2018). In count 1, she alleges that USAPL discriminated against her based on both sex and sexual orientation in a place of public accommodations. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.11, subd. 1(a)(1). In count 2, she alleges that USAPL discriminated against her based on both sex and sexual orientation in business. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.17(3).

And in count 3, she alleges that USAPL-MN aided and abetted USAPL's alleged discriminatory acts. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.14(1). Cooper demanded a jury trial and requested multiple forms of relief, including a permanent injunction, a civil penalty, compensatory damages, treble damages, and punitive damages. See Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.29, subds. 3-5, .33, subd. 6.

In essence, Cooper has asserted five claims: (1) discrimination based on sexual orientation in a place of public accommodations; (2) discrimination based on sex in a place of public accommodations; (3) discrimination based on sexual orientation in business; (4) discrimination based on sex in business; and (5) aiding and abetting discrimination. Her claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation are, in essence, claims of discrimination based on her transgender status or gender identity because, at the time of the events that give rise to this case, "sexual orientation" was defined by the MHRA to include "having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with [one's] biological maleness or femaleness." See Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 44 (2018).

The parties engaged in discovery for approximately two years. In November 2022, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Cooper moved for partial summary judgment with respect to liability on her first, third, and fifth claims. In support of her motion, Cooper submitted voluminous evidence (including deposition transcripts and internal USAPL e-mail communications) concerning USAPL's decision to exclude her from competing in the women's division of its competitions. In her memorandum of law, she argued, among other things, that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her sexual-orientation claims because "there is no factual dispute as to whether an illegitimate factor, namely Ms. Cooper's membership in a protected class, actually motivated defendants' rejection of her application to compete."

Meanwhile, USAPL also moved for summary judgment on all of Cooper's claims. In support of the motion, USAPL submitted an affidavit of its president, who stated:

The [USAPL] executive committee determined that [Cooper] should not be allowed to compete in the women's division because athletes who have gone through puberty as a male retain significant

...