Alston v. Virginia High School League, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. A. 97-0095-C.,CIV. A. 97-0095-C. |
| Citation | 144 F.Supp.2d 526 |
| Parties | Kevin ALSTON and Sandra Alston, as next friend of their minor daughter, Ashley Alston, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Mary Catherine Bauer, ACLU of Virginia Foundation, Richmond, VA, Deborah C. Waters, Rutter & Montagna, L.L.P., Norfolk, VA, Kristen Galles, Alexandria, VA, for plaintiffs.
James M. Johnson, Robert Craig Wood, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, Charlottesville, VA, for defendant.
Before the court are three motions, two that the plaintiffs filed in this case and one that the defendant filed. First, on August 2, 1999, the defendant filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b), on both claims found in the plaintiffs' complaint. Second, also on August 2, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Declaratory Judgment," which this court construes as a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion asks this court to find that (1) the Virginia High School League ("VHSL") is an entity subject to liability under Title IX of the Education Amendments and (2) that the VHSL is a "state actor" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finally, together with the motion for declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence," seeking to exclude from admission into evidence the survey conducted by the Center for Survey Research on behalf of the VHSL. For the reasons discussed below, the court denies the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denies the plaintiffs' motion for declaratory judgment, construed as a motion for partial summary judgment, and denies the plaintiffs' motion in limine.
On August 19, 1997, plaintiffs, as next friends of their minor daughters, brought this action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant has denied certain female athletes in the Commonwealth of Virginia's public high schools equal treatment, opportunities and benefits based on their sex in violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs bring their Title IX claim pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., for which jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3)-(4). Their claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is also brought in federal district court pursuant to the jurisdictional grant at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3)-(4). The court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
Plaintiffs in this action are the parents of minor girls enrolled in various public high schools in Virginia. The defendant, the VHSL, administers interscholastic athletic competition in Virginia and is an incorporated association whose members are 288 public high schools. These schools pay membership dues, which are one source of revenue for the VHSL. Each school has one vote in league governance, exercised through its principal, and member schools are recipients of federal funds. An executive committee, which has the power to formulate bylaws, rules, and regulations, controls the VHSL. The executive committee consists of twelve public high school principals, eight public school division superintendents, three public school athletic directors, along with two members of the Virginia Assembly and one member of the Virginia Department of Education. Decisions of the executive committee, however, are subject to review and alteration by the full membership at the biannual meetings.
The plaintiffs allege that the VHSL's system of scheduling athletic seasons constitutes intentional sex discrimination against certain female athletes. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that the VHSL's scheduling practices treat boys' sports differently than girls' sports, forcing some girls to stop playing sports they previously were able to play while no boys are ever forced to stop playing sports solely because of scheduling changes. The VHSL uniformly schedules boys' sports such that they play each sport in the same season across the A, AA and AAA divisions, which correspond to school size. Boys' basketball, for example, is played during the winter season at all public schools regardless of division classification. The schedule for girls' sports, however, varies depending on the division classification of the school. For example, girls' basketball is played in the fall for divisions A and AA schools, but in the winter for division AAA.1
Plaintiffs argue that upon reclassification into a new division, some female high school athletes who play multiple sports are forced to give up sports they previously played due to the scheduling conflict newly created by reclassification.2 Reclassification of a school from one division to another has the effect of changing the seasons in which certain girls' sports are played at a school, such that some girls' sports, previously scheduled in different seasons, now occur in the same season. For example, at a school that is reclassified from AA to AAA, field hockey and volleyball, previously played in two different seasons, would be played in the same season. The newly-created conflict due to reclassification would force girls who previously were able to play both field hockey and volleyball in their respective seasons to give up one or the other because only one sport may be played in each season. The girls' sports for which the seasons could change after reclassification are basketball, tennis and volleyball. No boys' sports change season after reclassification because boys' sports are played in the same season regardless of the school's division.
The plaintiffs allege that the combined effect of the VHSL's scheduling of girls' and boys' sports and its periodic reclassification of schools is discriminatory because after reclassification, no boys' sports change season as girls' sports do. No male high school athletes face the same dilemma as these plaintiffs because the season for each boys' sport is uniform across the A, AA and AAA divisions. However, all students must select their sports taking into account the seasons in which sports are played; and, as noted, no boy or girl student-athlete may play two sports that occur in the same season. The difference for the girls is that, after they have made their selection once based on the current seasons in which sports are played at their school, they may have to revise their selection upon reclassification, when those seasons change. Therefore, when a school is reclassified, its male athletes can continue playing the sports they previously selected, while some of its female athletes may have to give up one or more sports. Giving up a sport they had already played for one or more years in high school is the asserted disadvantage imposed on girls but never on boys under the VHSL's scheduling system. This unequal treatment, the plaintiffs claim, constitutes a violation by the VHSL of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
The defendant moves this court for summary judgment on both claims stated in the plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b). Regarding the plaintiffs' Title IX claim, the VHSL contends that it is not subject to liability under Title IX because it is not a recipient of federal funds. It also states that the plaintiffs have not shown sufficient evidence to justify an implied, private right of action for damages under Title IX, nor sufficient evidence of disparate impact to a large enough number of female students as a result of the VHSL's scheduling practices, or of any loss in participation opportunities for female athletes as defined by Title IX. The VHSL also contends that the plaintiffs cannot sue individually for unequal treatment under the VHSL athletics program. In reference to the plaintiffs' second claim under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the VHSL states that it is not subject to liability under the Equal Protection clause and 42 § U.S.C.1983 because it is not a state actor. Also, the VHSL contends that the plaintiffs have not set forth any evidence that its scheduling rules are not facially gender neutral or were promulgated or reaffirmed because of their alleged adverse impact on female athletes.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, as expressed in their motion for declaratory judgment, wish for this court to pronounce that the VHSL is an entity subject to liability under Title IX and that it is a "state actor" within the meaning of the Equal Protection clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court construes the plaintiff's declaratory judgment motion as a motion for partial summary judgment. The court construes the motion as such so that it is able to reach the issues involved without paying too close attention to the niceties of pleading. The plaintiffs also seek to exclude from admission into evidence the survey conducted by the Center for Survey Research on behalf of the VHSL because it is being used for an improper purpose and is inadmissible hearsay.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Issues of material fact are genuine only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The court must view the facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. Also, the nonmoving party is entitled to have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCormick ex rel v. School Dist Mamaroneck, 03-7892.
...boys' baseball and girls' softball programs at two high schools in Brevard County violated Title IX); Alston v. Virginia High Sch. League, Inc., 144 F.Supp.2d 526, 535-36 (W.D.Va.1999) (denying summary judgment to state high school athletic association on claim by female athletes that syste......
-
Safeway Inc. v. Cesc Plaza Lid. Partnership
...statements of the declarants' then-existing states of mind, and as such are admissible under Rule 803(3), Fed.R.Evid. See Alston v. Virginia High School League, 144 F.Supp.2d 526, 539 (W.D.Va.1999); Schering Corporation v. Pfizer, 189 F.3d 218, 227 (2nd Cir. 1999). The remainder of the tele......
-
Williams v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga
...to Title IX liability. NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 470-71, 119 S.Ct. 924, 142 L.Ed.2d 929 (1999); see also Alston v. Va. High Sch. League, Inc., 144 F.Supp.2d 526, 531 (W.D.Va.1999). We are persuaded, however, by the analysis of the Western District of Michigan, noting that if we allowed f......
-
Williams v. Board of Regents of University System
...to Title IX liability. NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 470-71, 119 S.Ct. 924, 142 L.Ed.2d 929 (1999); see also Alston v. Va. High Sch. League, Inc., 144 F.Supp.2d 526, 531 (W.D.Va.1999). We are persuaded, however, by the analysis of the Western District of Michigan, noting that if we allowed f......