Portz v. St. Cloud State University
- John Tunheim
- 0:16-cv-01115
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Portz v. St. Cloud State University, Judge Tunheim granted defendants’ motion for relief and dissolved the Title IX injunction.
The ruling affects St. Cloud State University and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities by ending the permanent injunction, and it affects the plaintiff class of present, prospective, and future female students at SCSU covered by the class definition. The court retained no jurisdiction over the matter after dissolving the injunction.
What happened
In Portz v. St. Cloud State University, female student-athletes claimed that St. Cloud State University and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities had discriminated against women in athletic opportunities, treatment, and benefits under Title IX.
The court reviewed the university’s travel, lodging, transportation, and per diem data and found that its treatment of men’s and women’s teams was now equitable. The court also considered concerns about the women’s softball facility but found the university’s planned use of Husky Stadium adequate; it declined to reconsider athletic participation opportunities because that part of the injunction had already been dissolved.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted the defendants’ motion for relief from judgment and dissolved the remaining permanent injunction, ending the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.
The detailed version
- Portz v. St. Cloud State University · No. 0:16-cv-01115
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 14, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that St. Cloud State University (SCSU) and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities violated Title IX by discriminating against female student-athletes in the allocation of athletic participation opportunities, treatment, and benefits. After a bench trial, the court found that SCSU had violated Title IX and entered a permanent injunction requiring program-wide compliance.
After an appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the finding concerning athletic participation opportunities but reversed the finding concerning treatment and benefits. The district court later dissolved the part of the injunction concerning participation opportunities and reinstated or modified the part concerning treatment and benefits, particularly travel and per diem policies and practices.
Current Compliance Evidence
SCSU submitted periodic compliance reports. Its written Athletics Team Travel Policy addressed travel approval, travel frequency and length, transportation, lodging, room assignments, hotel rates, and per diem meal rates. SCSU also collected travel forms, receipts, and related data for the 2022–23 and 2023–24 academic years.
For 2023–24, women’s teams took 86 trips and men’s teams took 50 trips. The court found that the teams traveled to comparable places, used comparable transportation, had comparable hotel arrangements, and generally assigned two student-athletes per room. Three exceptions involved three student-athletes per room: two women’s-team trips and one men’s-team trip. The court also found that SCSU’s collection of per diem receipts demonstrated equitable treatment.
Analysis
Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in an education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The court evaluated athletic treatment and benefits program-wide using regulatory factors that include travel and per diem, facilities, equipment, coaching, medical services, and other benefits.
The court concluded that SCSU had provided ongoing evidence of compliance with Title IX concerning athletic-related treatment and benefits. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that continued monitoring was necessary, reasoning that the injunction did not require SCSU to establish monitoring procedures and that Title IX would continue to apply.
The plaintiffs also argued that SCSU lacked equitable competitive facilities for the women’s softball team. The court found that Husky Stadium, where the team was expected to play during the 2025 season, would be an adequate and National Collegiate Athletic Association-compliant facility. The court noted that, if SCSU failed to carry out the plan, the plaintiffs could bring another action. The court did not reconsider athletic participation opportunities because it had already dissolved that portion of the injunction.
Disposition
The court determined that SCSU’s Title IX violation concerning treatment and benefits had been remedied and that the permanent injunction was no longer needed. The order granted defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment and dissolved the permanent injunction. The court stated that this ended its jurisdiction over the matter.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.