Portz v. St. Cloud State University

Background

The plaintiffs were a class of female student-athletes at St. Cloud State University. They sued St. Cloud State University and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board of Trustees under Title IX, alleging unequal allocation of athletic participation opportunities, benefits, and athletic-based financial aid.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the financial-aid claim and the plaintiffs’ damages claim. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages. The plaintiffs also requested a jury trial.

Financial-Aid Claim

Title IX and its regulations require colleges that award athletic scholarships or grants to provide reasonable opportunities for awards to members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in intercollegiate athletics. The parties disagreed about how to count participants. The defendants argued that each student-athlete should be counted once, even if that student participated in more than one sport. The plaintiffs argued that financial aid should instead be measured against the participation opportunities the university should have offered if it complied with Title IX’s participation requirements.

The court deferred to the Department of Education’s Athletics Investigator’s Manual, which instructs that students participating on more than one team should be counted only once. The court found that this method did not conflict with the Department of Education’s regulations or other guidance. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed calculation because Title IX participation-opportunity claims and financial-aid claims are separate claims, and the financial-aid regulation requires use of the number of students actually participating.

Using the defendants’ participant counts, the court found that female student-athletes received a greater share of athletic-based financial aid per student than male student-athletes from at least 2013–2014 through 2016–2017. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and noted that the plaintiffs had not presented direct evidence of discriminatory intent to rebut the applicable presumption of compliance.

Damages and Jury Trial

The court stated that it had already dismissed the plaintiffs’ monetary-damages claims. Because the remaining requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were equitable, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial.

Order

The court granted the defendants’ second motion for partial summary judgment. It dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ unequal allocation of athletic-related financial assistance claim in Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint. It denied the plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial. The opinion states that the participation-opportunity claim would proceed to trial.