Portz v. St. Cloud State University

Background

The plaintiffs were female student-athletes who attended or recently attended St. Cloud State University (SCSU) and were members of its women’s tennis or women’s Nordic skiing teams. They represented a certified class of present, prospective, and future female students allegedly harmed by sex discrimination in athletic participation opportunities and benefits.

The court had previously issued preliminary injunctions protecting the women’s tennis and Nordic skiing teams. Those orders barred the defendants from eliminating the teams, reducing their support, or restricting their access to facilities, coaching, training, and competitive opportunities, subject to specified terms concerning the Nordic skiing coaches.

After a bench trial, the court entered a permanent injunction in August 2019. It required SCSU to provide female students and athletes equitable opportunities, treatment, and benefits under Title IX. The injunction specifically required SCSU to maintain the women’s tennis and Nordic skiing teams at a comparable support level while they remained viable, or otherwise take steps to narrow the participation gap. It also required improvements to facilities and other efforts toward compliance.

The First Contempt Motion: Tennis and Nordic Skiing

The plaintiffs sought compensatory civil contempt for alleged violations of the preliminary injunction. They argued that SCSU failed to properly support the women’s tennis and Nordic skiing teams while that injunction was in effect.

For tennis, the plaintiffs pointed to a roughly four-month delay in hiring a replacement coach after the prior coach died, difficulties involving the new coach’s contract and authority to schedule matches, a reduction in matches, unsuccessful recruiting, and the removal of approximately $9,000 from the tennis account. SCSU argued that the coach’s death was outside its control, that prospective athletes independently chose not to attend, and that the injunction did not require more support than the team previously received.

The court rejected SCSU’s position. It found that the preliminary injunction required more than merely avoiding a reduction in the team’s prior level of care. SCSU restricted or denied access to coaching, competitive opportunities, and the basic ability to maintain the team. The court therefore granted the first contempt motion as to women’s tennis and awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages.

For Nordic skiing, the plaintiffs identified the deteriorating team room, fewer competitions, unsuccessful recruiting, and inadequate coaching. The court found that SCSU provided inadequate coaching and training, that coaches did not always attend practices or races, that one coach could not perform ordinary ski-waxing duties, and that the team room continued to deteriorate through 2019. The court also found that the team’s reduced recruiting and support contributed to fewer competitive opportunities. It granted the first contempt motion as to women’s Nordic skiing and awarded another $10,000 in compensatory damages.

The Second Contempt Motion: Women’s Golf

The plaintiffs sought contempt based on SCSU’s December 2019 elimination of the women’s golf team. They argued that SCSU could not eliminate any women’s team before achieving full Title IX compliance and that the elimination was automatically a violation, even though the restructuring eliminated more men’s participation opportunities.

The court disagreed. The permanent injunction specifically protected the women’s tennis and Nordic skiing teams from elimination but did not impose the same protection on women’s golf. The court found that SCSU could alter the sports it offered as part of an effort to reduce unequal participation opportunities, so long as it stayed within the law and the injunction. The restructuring eliminated the men’s football and golf teams and the women’s golf team and added a men’s soccer team. The court viewed this as a good-faith effort to comply with Title IX and the permanent injunction while addressing budget problems. It therefore denied the second contempt motion.

Jurisdiction and Other Procedural Arguments

SCSU argued that the court lacked authority to consider the contempt motions because an appeal was pending and because the preliminary injunction had merged into the permanent injunction. The court held that it could consider compensatory contempt for past violations of the preliminary injunction and that the pending appeal did not remove its authority over these issues.

SCSU also argued that sovereign immunity barred the second motion. The court declined to dismiss the motions on that ground, concluding that SCSU had waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for Title IX violations by accepting federal funds and that federal courts may enforce injunctions against state entities through civil contempt. Finally, although the plaintiffs had not complied with the local meet-and-confer requirement, the court declined to dismiss the motions because SCSU suffered no prejudice and compliance would not have improved the court’s efficiency.

Order

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that the plaintiffs’ first motion for contempt was GRANTED, and that the defendants pay $20,000 in compensatory damages. The plaintiffs’ second motion for contempt was DENIED. The court noted that its ruling did not prevent future contempt proceedings if SCSU later failed to comply with the permanent injunction.