688 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982), 82-1049, Haffer v. Temple University

Docket Nº:82-1049.
Citation:688 F.2d 14
Party Name:Rollin HAFFER, ind. and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, et al., Appellants.
Case Date:September 07, 1982
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 14

688 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982)

Rollin HAFFER, ind. and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, et al.,


TEMPLE UNIVERSITY of the Commonwealth System of Higher

Education, et al., Appellants.

No. 82-1049.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

September 7, 1982

Argued July 19, 1982.

Page 15

Nancy Duff Campbell (argued), Marcia D. Greenberger, Margaret A. Kohn, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Marc P. Cherno, Pamela Jarvis, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York City, for amici curiae Disability Rights Educ. and Defense Fund, et al.; Phyllis N. Segal, Anne E. Simon, NOW Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, New York City, of counsel.

Peter M. Mattoon (argued), Michael L. Lehr, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants; Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.

Before ADAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, [*] District Judge.



Eight women undergraduates at Temple University brought this class action, charging that the University discriminates on the basis of sex in its intercollegiate athletic program. 1 The plaintiffs contend that Temple's allegedly discriminatory policies violate section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which provides: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 2 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 3 Temple denied that it discriminates against women in intercollegiate athletics and moved for summary judgment, arguing that Title IX applies only to an education program or an activity directly in receipt of federal funds and that the University's athletic program receives no such earmarked federal monies. 4

After several affidavits had been submitted and a number of depositions had been taken in order to clarify the nature of federal funding currently received by Temple, 5 Chief Judge Lord denied the motion

Page 16

for summary judgment. The district court held that: (1) Title IX's coverage is not limited to educational programs and activities that receive earmarked federal dollars, but also includes any program that indirectly benefits from the receipt of federal funds; because Temple's athletic program indirectly benefits from the large amounts of federal financial assistance furnished to the University in the forms of grants and contracts, Title IX is applicable to Temple's athletic program; and (2) even if Title IX is construed to require direct federal financing, the Temple athletic program receives and benefits from several hundred thousand dollars worth of annual federal aid, and therefore is covered under Title IX. Haffer v. Temple University, 524 F.Supp. 531 (E.D.Pa.1981).

Temple requested and received certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of the following question:

Whether the phrase "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" as used in Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)) includes programs or activities, such as Temple University's intercollegiate athletic program, which do not themselves receive earmarked Federal financial assistance, if such programs or activities benefit from the receipt of Federal financial assistance by other parts of the University and/or by students enrolled at the University.

We answer this question in the affirmative.

After this matter was heard at oral argument, another panel of this Court issued a decision in Grove City College v. Bell, 687 F.2d 684 (3d Cir. 1982). The issue in Grove City was whether a private college that receives no direct funds from the federal government, but whose students receive federal grants under the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants program (BEOG), is covered under Title IX. After analyzing the statute, its legislative history, and the relevant caselaw, the Grove City panel concluded that Title IX's prohibition on gender discrimination in education is indeed triggered when students make use of BEOG assistance.

Whatever the views of the individual judges on this panel may be, the result reached in Grove City and the reasoning employed by the Court there resolve the present appeal. 6 The Grove City panel initially determined that the "all inclusive terminology" of Title IX "encompass(es) all forms of federal aid to education,...

To continue reading