Haffer v. Temple University
Decision Date | 15 January 1988 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 80-1362. |
Citation | 678 F. Supp. 517 |
Parties | Rollin HAFFER, et al. v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Arthur Bryant, Washington, D.C. (Trial Lawyers for Public Justice), Ellen Vargyas, Washington, D.C. (National Women's Law Center), William Hangley, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Robert J. Reinstein (Mary Ellen Krober), University Counsel, John B. Langel, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
This is a class action alleging unlawful gender discrimination in Temple University's intercollegiate athletic program. The plaintiff class consists of "all current women students at Temple University who participate, or who are or have been deterred from participating because of sex discrimination in Temple's intercollegiate athletic program." Plaintiffs' claims focus on three basic areas: (a) the extent to which Temple affords women students fewer "opportunities to compete" in intercollegiate athletics; (b) the alleged disparity in resources allocated to the men's and women's intercollegiate athletic programs; and (c) the alleged disparity in the allocation of financial aid to male and female student athletes. Plaintiffs claim that the treatment of women student athletes in each of these areas violates the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause1 and the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment. Plaintiffs also claim that the distribution of financial aid violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("Title IX").2
Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Defendants' motion is supported by a lengthy legal memorandum, two expert reports, numerous affidavits and well over fifteen hundred pages of deposition testimony. Plaintiffs have filed a motion, supported by over eight hundred pages of depositions and exhibits, to strike the expert reports. Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment ("Plaintiffs' memorandum") is supported by twenty-nine exhibits. In addition, defendants' reply memorandum and plaintiffs' memorandum of law in further opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment are before me, as are exhibits and other evidence submitted in connection with plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Review of this evidence reveals many genuine issues of material fact.
As the parties advance radically divergent views of the law applicable to plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims, I will first discuss the applicable legal standards. I will then examine whether the evidence produced by plaintiff is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these claims. Next, I will briefly discuss plaintiffs' state constitutional claims. Finally, I will consider plaintiffs' Title IX claim.
This appears to be the first case to challenge the operation of an intercollegiate athletic program on federal equal protection grounds. The existing case law, primarily involving equal protection challenges to various high school athletic programs, is of limited value. However, it is helpful to review briefly the reported cases, to extract certain principles courts have applied in these cases, and to identify certain arguments that courts generally accept.
Id. at 561, 740 P.2d at 1380-81.
The trial court ordered that the women's program receive a specified percentage of the funds allocated to intercollegiate athletics, and that this percentage be increased each year by 2 percent until it corresponds to the percentage of women undergraduates at the University. The trial court further provided that "the level of support for women's athletics was not required to exceed by more than 3 percent the actual participation rate of women in intercollegiate athletics at the University, excluding football participation from the comparison." Id. at 562, 740 P.2d at 1381. Similarly, the court ordered that women receive a specified percentage "of all money expended for scholarships, excluding funds expended for football scholarships." Id. at 562, 740 P.2d at 1381. This percentage is to increase yearly until it equals the percentage of women undergraduates. Finally, the University was ordered "to allow for increased participation opportunities until female participation, again excluding football participation from the comparison, reached a level commensurate with the proportion of female undergraduate students." Id. at 563, 740 P.2d at 1381.
Plaintiffs appealed various aspects of the trial court's order. The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in constructing remedies that excluded football from the relevant calculations. "The Equal Rights Amendment contains no exception for football." Id. at 566, 740 P.2d at 1383. However, the state Supreme Court refused to modify that portion of the order which permitted the University to exclude revenue generated by a particular sport from calculations of the University's overall financial support. The Court found that exclusion of such revenues was "neither required nor prohibited by applicable law," and specifically held that the trial court "acted within its discretion" in permitting such exclusions. Id. at 567, 740 P.2d at 1384.
Numerous cases have challenged regulations that prohibit girls from participating in a particular high school sport or sports. In general, courts have had little difficulty in concluding that such regulations deny girls the equal protection of the laws. See Hoover v. Meiklejohn, 430 F.Supp. 164 (D.Colo.1977) ( ); Brenden v. Independent School Dist., 477 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1973) ( ). See also Morris v. Michigan State Board of Education, 472 F.2d 1207 (6th Cir.1973) ( ); Force by Force v. Pierce City R-VI School Dist., 570 F.Supp. 1020 (W.D.Mo. 1983) ( ); Leffel v. Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, 444 F.Supp. 1117 (E.D.Wis 1978) ( ); Carnes v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletics Ass'n, 415 F.Supp. 569 (E.D.Tenn.1976) ( ); Clinton v. Nagy, 411 F.Supp. 1396 (N.D.Ohio 1974) ( ); National Organization for Women v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 127 N.J.Super. 522, 318 A.2d 33, aff'd, 67 N.J. 320, 338 A.2d 198 (1974) ( ).
Courts have had more difficulty with rules prohibiting boys from participating on girl's teams. In Clark v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'n, 695 F.2d 1126 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 818, 104 S.Ct. 79, 78 L.Ed.2d 90 (1983), Petrie v. Ill. High School Athletic Ass'n, 75 Ill.App.3d 980, 31 Ill.Dec. 653, 394 N.E.2d 855 (1979) and Mularadelis v. Haldane Central School Board, 74 A.D.2d 248, 427 N.Y.S.2d 458 (1980) such rules were upheld. These courts relied on the arguments that such regulations were substantially related to the important governmental interests in promoting overall equality of athletic opportunity, and in redressing past discrimination against women in athletics. But see Gomes v. Rhode Island Interscholastic League, 469 F.Supp. 659 (D.R.I.), vacated as moot by time of appeal, 604 F.2d 733 (1st Cir.1979) ( ); Attorney General v. Mass. Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, 378 Mass. 342, 393 N.E.2d 284 (1979) ( ).
The reported decisions reveal a heightened sensitivity to the history of sex discrimination in athletics, see, e.g., Yellow Springs v. Ohio High School Athletic Ass'n, 647 F.2d 651, 669-675 (6th Cir.1981), and a judicial endorsement of the policy of maximizing athletic opportunity for females. Although differential treatment, with respect to a particular sport, is permitted when the record reveals relevant physical differences, Clark, 695 F.2d at 1127, Lafler v. Athletic Board of Control, 536 F.Supp. 104, 106 (W.D.Mich.1982), over-broad and unsupported generalizations regarding the relative athletic abilities of males and females will be rejected. Yellow Springs, 647 F.2d at 657; Brenden, 477 F.2d at 1300-1301. Excluding girls from participation in particular sports for their own "safety" does not pass constitutional muster. Force by Force, 570 F.Supp. at 1030; Fortin v. Darlington Little...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia
...IX's regulations. See Roberts v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture, 998 F.2d 824, 832-33 (10th Cir.1993); Haffer v. Temple University, 678 F.Supp. 517, 539-40 (E.D.Pa. 1987). A review of Title IX's implementing regulations demonstrates an emphasis on the "effects" and "impact" of a defend......
-
Sharif By Salahuddin v. New York State Educ. Dept.
...Education, 813 F.2d 311, 317 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 148, 98 L.Ed.2d 104 (1987); Haffer v. Temple University, 678 F.Supp. 517, 539 (E.D.Pa.1987). In Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission, 463 U.S. 582, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983), the Supreme......
-
Mansourian v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of California at Davis
...including in seminal cases addressing Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause in athletics, such as Cohen v. Brown University and Haffer v. Temple University. (JX 85, at 6–7; TT 776:14–777:4.) 130. Dr. Lopiano is currently the Chief Executive Officer of Sports Management Resources, a consu......
-
Pfeiffer by Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School Dist., Bd. of School Directors for Marion Center Area School Dist.
...us that Title IX includes a remedy of compensatory damages. In so doing, we follow the analysis of Judge Lord in Haffer v. Temple Univ., 678 F.Supp. 517 (E.D.Pa.1987) and Chief Judge Nealon in Beehler v. Jeffes, 664 F.Supp. 931 Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has decided specifical......
-
Fifty Years Of Progress: The Legal History Of Title IX
...students and student-athletes began enforcing their Title IX rights through federal lawsuits. See, e.g., Haffer v. Temple University, 678 F. Supp. 517 (E.D. Pa. 1988); Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992); Cohen v. Brown University, 809 F. Supp. 978 (D.R.I. 1992), ......
-
Title Ix Litigation in the 1990's: the Courts Need a Game Plan
...because of the Grove City decision. 43. See, e.g., Haffer, 678 F. Supp at 521. 44. 20 U.S.C. §§1681-1688(1988). 45. Id. § 1687(4). 46. 678 F. Supp. at 517. 47. Id. at 48. Id. at 541. 49. Christina A. Longo and Elizabeth P. Thonan, A Reawakening of Gender Discrimination in intercollegiate At......