Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ. & Minn. State Colls. & Universities, Civil No. 16–1115
| Decision Date | 26 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 16–1115 |
| Parties | Alexie PORTZ, Jill Kedrowski, Abigail Kantor, Marilia Roque Diversi, Fernanda Quintino Dos Santos, Maria Hauer, Haley Bock, Kaitlyn Babich, Anna Lindell, and Kiersten Rohde, Plaintiffs, v. ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Sharon L. Van Dyck, Donald C. Mark, Jr., and Andrew T. James, FAFINSKI MARK & JOHNSON, P.A., 775 Prairie Center Drive, Suite 400, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, for plaintiffs.
Kevin A. Finnerty, Assistant Attorney General, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 900, St. Paul, MN 55101, for defendants.
This is a putative class action brought by female student-athletes enrolled at St. Cloud State University ("SCSU"). The named plaintiffs, members of SCSU's varsity women's tennis and Nordic skiing teams, sued SCSU and its governing body, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities ("MSCU") (collectively, "SCSU"), following the school's announcement that it planned to eliminate several sports, including women's tennis and women's Nordic skiing. Plaintiffs assert claims against SCSU for violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1621, et. seq. , and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Four motions are presently before the Court.
First, SCSU has moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim and damages claim. The Court will grant SCSU's motion and dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim and damages claim.
Second, Plaintiffs have moved for class certification. The Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion but will redefine the class as follows:
All present, prospective, and future female students at St. Cloud State University who are harmed by and want to end St. Cloud State University's sex discrimination in: (1) the allocation of athletic participation opportunities; (2) the allocation of athletic financial assistance; and (3) the allocation of benefits provided to varsity athletes.
Additionally, the Court will appoint Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A., as class counsel.
Third, in relation to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, SCSU moves to strike Plaintiffs' reply brief because it was filed after the scheduled deadline. The Court will deny this motion because neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the local rules for the District of Minnesota permit a party to move to strike a belatedly filed brief.
Fourth and finally, SCSU has moved to exclude expert testimony from Dr. Donna Lopiano. The Court will grant SCSU's motion in part and deny it in part.
Defendant St. Cloud State University ("SCSU") is a public university owned and operated by the State of Minnesota. SCSU is a member of the Minnesota State system, which is governed by a board of trustees known as the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board of Trustees. (Id. ¶ 20.) SCSU receives federal financial assistance and is subject to Title IX. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs are current or former student-athletes on the women's tennis and women's Nordic skiing teams. (Id. ¶¶ 8–17.)
SCSU offers a number of varsity intercollegiate sports, which are divided into a four-tier system. (Id. ¶¶ 59, 67.) Tier I consists of SCSU's Division I men's and women's ice hockey programs. (Id. ¶ 67.) Tier II consists of SCSU's Division II men's and women's basketball, football, and volleyball programs. (Id. ) Tier III consists of SCSU's Division II baseball, softball, women's indoor and outdoor track & field, women's cross country, women's soccer, men's and women's swimming and diving, and men's wrestling programs. (Id. ) Tier IV consists of SCSU's men's and women's golf, women's tennis, and women's Nordic skiing programs. (Id. ) On March 2, 2016, SCSU announced its intent to reorganize its athletic offerings by eliminating six intercollegiate sports programs, including the women's tennis and women's Nordic skiing teams. (Id. ¶ 78.)
SCSU's enrollment peaked in 2011 at 22,024 total students; excluding high school students, enrollment was 19,186. (Aff. of Lisa Foss ("Foss Aff.") ¶ 4, May 11, 2016, Docket No. 26.) By 2016, total enrollment was down to 18,859; 14,990 excluding high school students. (Id. ¶ 5.) Revenues from tuition fell by approximately $8.6 million from 2011 to 2016. (Id. ¶ 6.)
In December 2015, "the President's Office" asked SCSU's athletics director, Heather Weems, "to come forward with a cost containment strategy in athletics." (First Aff. of Heather Weems ("Weems Aff.") ¶¶ 2, 10, May 11, 2016, Docket No. 25.) Weems proposed that SCSU eliminate men's tennis, cross country, and indoor and outdoor track, as well as women's tennis and Nordic skiing. (Id. ¶ 13.) Weems's proposal also called for a number of men's teams to reduce their number of participants, and for certain women's teams to increase their levels of participation. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Plaintiffs maintain that SCSU has never complied with Title IX, and eliminating the women's tennis and Nordic skiing teams would only worsen the disparity between male and female athletic opportunities. (Compl. ¶¶ 72–75, 79.) According to Plaintiffs, "SCSU's discrimination against females is so substantial, as a matter of law it cannot eliminate any female athletic participation opportunities unless and until it first eliminates a substantial number of male athletic participation opportunities." (Id. ¶ 76.) But, if SCSU eliminated male participation opportunities such that they equaled the number of female participation opportunities, then SCSU would lose its NCAA Division I membership. (Id. ) Plaintiffs allege that the only realistic solution is for SCSU to increase women's participation opportunities. (Id. )
Title IX 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....
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Title IX extends to athletic programs offered by institutions of higher education. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a).
Plaintiffs have filed this case as a class action on behalf of SCSU's current, prospective, and future female students, alleging that SCSU has violated Title IX by (1) providing male students with a greater opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics than female students; (2) providing male students with disproportionately greater athletic-related financial assistance than female students; and (3) providing male athletes with disproportionately better benefits and treatment than female athletes. (Id. ¶¶ 1–2.)
With regard to Plaintiffs' first allegation, Title IX requires institutions of higher education to offer equal athletic participation opportunities for male and female students. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c). The Department of Education's guidance provides institutions of higher education with three ways of ensuring equal athletic participation opportunities. Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics , 44 Fed. Reg. 71,413, 71,418 (Dec. 11, 1979). But Plaintiffs allege that "SCSU has always provided its male students with proportionally more opportunities to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics than it has offered its female students." (Compl. ¶ 75.) Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that if SCSU eliminates the women's tennis and women's Nordic skiing teams, the disparity between male and female participation opportunities will grow further. (Id. ¶¶ 105–07.)
With regard to Plaintiffs' second allegation, Title IX requires institutions of higher education to offer equal athletic-related financial assistance to male and female students. 34 C.F.R. § 160.37. SCSU offers more athletic participation opportunities for male students than female students at Tiers I and II, and Plaintiffs allege that SCSU offers more scholarships to students who participate in Tier I and II sports than those participate in Tier III and IV sports. (Compl. ¶ 70.) As a result fewer female student-athletes receive athletic-related financial assistance. ( Id. )
Finally, with regard to Plaintiffs' third allegation, Title IX requires institutions of higher education to provide female and male student-athletes the same treatment and benefits. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(2)–(10). Plaintiffs allege that SCSU fails to provide female student-athletes with an equal allocation of benefits. (Id. ¶ 128.) Plaintiffs allege that the female student-athletes are provided with subpar facilities compared to those provided to male student-athletes. (Id. ¶¶ 130–32.) Plaintiffs also allege that SCSU fails to provide equal provision of equipment, equal scheduling of games and practice time, equal medical and training services, and equal administrative and coaching support, among other benefits. (Id. ¶ 35.) These requirements are often referred to as the "laundry list" requirements. (Id. ¶ 54 (citing 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) ).)
Plaintiffs also allege that SCSU has engaged in sex-based discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. (Id. ¶¶ 2–4, 144.)
Plaintiffs filed their first complaint on April 28, 2016. (First Compl., Apr. 28, 2016, Docket No. 1). Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 15, 2017. (Compl.) Plaintiffs request a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Compl. at 47–48.)
In July 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining SCSU from eliminating SCSU's women's tennis team. Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ. , 196 F.Supp.3d 963 (D. Minn. 2016).
SCSU moves for partial summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Animal Legal Def. Fund, Iowa Citizens for Cmty. Improvement, Bailing Out Benji, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Reynolds
... ... (the Motion) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), ECF No. 18, ... to bring their claims and also fail to state a claim for violation of their constitutional ... consequences." Republican Party of Minn., Third Cong. Dist. v. Klobuchar , 381 F.3d 785, ... Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va. , 515 U.S. 819, 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 ... ...
-
A. B. ex rel. C.B. v. Haw. State Dep't of Educ.
...favor denial of class certification on the basis of speculative conflicts." (citations omitted)); see also Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ., 297 F. Supp. 3d 929, 947 (D. Minn. 2018) (finding that a speculative conflict, unsupported by evidence, did not give rise to inadequate representation).......
-
Anders v. Cal. State Univ., CASE: 1:21-cv-179-AWI-BAM
...and application of Title IX are plainly in the vein of legal briefing, not expert testimony, see Portz v. St. Cloud State University, 297 F. Supp. 3d 929, 953 (D. Minn. 2018) (finding that portions of Lopiano's report in that casewere "just a summary" of Title IX regulations and that "Lopia......
-
Anders v. Cal. State Univ., Fresno
...marks omitted). The Court will therefore begin by reviewing the scope of the proposed class. See Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ., 297 F.Supp.3d 929, 942 (D. Minn. 2018) (“The Court must first decide whether Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is acceptable.”); see also, Bryant v. Colgate U......