Brown University Title IX Compliance: Comprehensive Legal Commentary

Brown University Title IX Compliance: Comprehensive Legal Commentary

Introduction

In the landmark case Amy Cohen, et al. v. Brown University, et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed significant issues surrounding Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The plaintiffs, a class comprising current, future, and potential female students of Brown University, alleged that the institution engaged in discriminatory practices by demoting several women's athletic teams from university-funded to donor-funded varsity status. This commentary delves into the procedural history, judicial reasoning, cited precedents, and the broader implications of the court's decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The case began as a class action lawsuit alleging that Brown University's actions violated Title IX by discriminating against female athletes. Initially, the district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the reinstatement of certain women's teams and prohibiting further reductions until the case's resolution. This decision was upheld on appeal.

On remand, after a thorough bench trial, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that Brown's athletics program violated Title IX. The court mandated Brown to submit a compliance plan within 60 days. Brown's proposed plan, which included both enhancing women's programs and reducing men's teams, was deemed inadequate. Consequently, the court ordered Brown to elevate and maintain specific women's teams to university-funded status.

The appellate court affirmed the district court's findings on liability, rejecting Brown's appeals regarding evidentiary rulings and the interpretation of the Title IX compliance test. However, the court identified an error in the district court's approach to specific relief and remanded the case for reconsideration of the remedy in light of the appellate opinion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases and regulatory frameworks that have shaped the interpretation of Title IX, particularly in the context of intercollegiate athletics. Key precedents include:

  • Cohen I, II, III: These prior decisions established the foundation for analyzing Title IX compliance, especially the "three-prong test" to assess whether an athletics program is discriminatory.
  • Metro Broadcasting v. FCC: Initially supporting a more lenient view on benign racial classifications, this case was later partially overruled by Adarand Construction Inc. v. Pena.
  • Adarand Construction Inc. v. Pena: This Supreme Court decision mandated strict scrutiny for all racial classifications, overturning the leniency previously granted in Metro Broadcasting.
  • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: Addressed affirmative action and quotas in university admissions, influencing how numerical balances are viewed under equal protection laws.
  • UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA: Another pivotal case that enforced intermediate scrutiny for gender-based classifications, emphasizing the need for "exceedingly persuasive justification."

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's evolving stance on affirmative action and anti-discrimination measures, emphasizing the balance between remedial actions and constitutional safeguards.

Legal Reasoning

Central to the court's decision is the application of the "three-prong test" derived from the Title IX regulations and reinforced by prior judicial interpretations. The prongs are:

  1. Substantial Proportionality: Athletic participation opportunities for both sexes must be proportionate to their enrollment ratios.
  2. Program Expansion: In cases of underrepresentation, the institution must demonstrate a history of systematically expanding opportunities responsive to the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
  3. Effective Accommodation: If prongs one and two are not satisfied, the institution must fully and effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex in athletics.

The court reaffirmed the "law of the case" doctrine, which binds successive legal proceedings to prior rulings unless exceptional circumstances warrant a departure. Brown's attempts to reinterpret the test were dismissed as unavailing, given the established precedent set by Cohen II.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the substantial deference owed to the Department of Education's (DED) Policy Interpretation under Chevron deference principles, reinforcing that the agency's authoritative interpretations of its regulations must be followed unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

The dissenting opinion, however, argued that the majority's interpretation effectively creates a quota system, imposing gender-based numerical balances that conflict with the intent of Title IX and potentially infringe upon constitutional protections.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for educational institutions and their athletic programs. It reinforces the necessity for universities to:

  • Ensure that athletic opportunities are proportionate to student demographics.
  • Maintain a history of program expansion responsive to the needs of underrepresented genders.
  • Provide comprehensive accommodation for underrepresented genders when proportionality and historical expansion are lacking.

Failure to adhere to these standards could result in legal actions, financial penalties, and reputational damage. Additionally, the decision highlights the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing federal anti-discrimination statutes, emphasizing the balance between institutional autonomy and statutory compliance.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Three-Prong Test

This is a framework used to evaluate whether an institution's athletics program complies with Title IX. It assesses proportionality of participation, historical efforts to expand opportunities, and the effectiveness of accommodations made for underrepresented genders.

Law of the Case Doctrine

A procedural principle that prevents the re-litigation of legal issues that have already been decided in earlier stages of the same case, ensuring consistency and judicial efficiency.

Chevron Deference

A judicial doctrine that mandates courts to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes within their purview, provided the interpretations are reasonable.

Conclusion

The appellate court's decision in COHEN v. BROWN UNIVERSITY underscores the stringent requirements institutions must meet to comply with Title IX, particularly in the realm of intercollegiate athletics. By upholding the district court's findings on liability while identifying procedural errors in the specific relief offered, the court mandates a more refined approach to remedying gender disparities. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future Title IX litigation, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to enforcing anti-discrimination statutes while navigating the complexities of educational and athletic administration.

Moreover, the dissenting opinion serves as a cautionary perspective on the potential overreach of numerical balancing measures, advocating for a more nuanced and constitutionally sound application of anti-discrimination principles.

Case Details

Year: 1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Judge(s)

Juan R. TorruellaHugh Henry Bownes

Attorney(S)

Joan A. Lukey, Boston, MA, and Walter B. Connolly, Jr., Detroit, MI, with whom Hale and Dorr, Alison B. Marshall, Washington, DC, Miller, Canfield, Paddock Stone, Beverly E. Ledbetter, General Counsel, Brown University, Julius C. Michaelson, Jeffrey S. Michaelson and Michaelson Michaelson, Providence, RI, were on brief for appellants. Martin Michaelson, with whom Amy Folsom Kett, Washington, DC, Suzanne M. Bonnet, Hogan Hartson L.L.P., Denver, CO, and Sheldon E. Steinbach, Washington, DC, General Counsel, American Council on Education, were on brief for American Council on Education, Association of American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, amici curiae. George A. Davidson, Carla A. Kerr, Seth D. Rothman and Hughes Hubbard Reed, on brief for Baylor University, Boston University, Colgate University, College of the Holy Cross, Colorado State University, Fairfield University, George Washington University, John Hopkins University, Lafayette College, New York University, Saint Peter's College, Southern Methodist University, Tulane University, University of Arkansas, University of Nebraska, University of Notre Dame, and Wake Forest University, amici curiae. Melinda Ledden Sidak, Washington, DC, and Anita K. Blair, Arlington, VA, on brief for the Independent Women's Forum, amicus curiae. Stephen S. Ostrach, Todd S. Brilliant, New York City, and New England Legal Foundation, on brief for American Baseball Coaches Association, College Swim Coaches Association of America, National Wrestling Coaching Association and United States Water Polo, amici curiae. Lynette Labinger, with whom Roney Labinger, Amato A. DeLuca, DeLuca Weizenbaum, Ltd., Raymond Marcaccio, Blish Cavanagh, Providence, RI, Sandra L. Duggan, Sandra L. Duggan, Esq., P.C., Arthur H. Bryant, Leslie A. Brueckner, La Jolla, CA, and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C., were on brief for appellees. Deborah L. Brake, with whom Marcia D. Greenberger, Judith C. Appelbaum and National Women's Law Center were on brief for National Women's Law Center, American Association of University Women/AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund, American Civil Liberties Union Women's Rights Project, California Women's Law Center, Center For Women Policy Studies, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority Foundation, Girls Incorporated, National Association for Girls and Women in Sports, National Association for Women in Education, National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education, National Commission on Working Women, National Council of Administrative Women in Education, National Education Association, National Organization for Women Foundation, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Softball Coaches Association, Northwest Women's Law Center, Parents for Title IX, Rhode Island Affiliate American Civil Liberties Union, Women Employed, Women's Basketball Coaches Association, Women's Law Project, Women's Legal Defense Fund, Women's Sports Foundation, and YWCA of the USA, amici curiae. Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Dennis J. Dimsey and Lisa W. Edwards, Attorneys, Department of Justice, on brief for the United States, amicus curiae.

Comments