BSLW6604 Lecture Notes - Lecture 20: Civil Rights Restoration Act Of 1987, Summary Judgment, Reverse Discrimination
8 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
1. Title IX Cases
a. Haffer v. Temple University (1982)
i. Some female students challenged Temple University’s athletic department with
discrimination under Title IX. Temple argued for a summary judgment claiming
the athletic department did not receive federal funds and thus should be exempt
from Title IX enforcement. The lower court held that Title IX was applicable and
the Appeals Court upheld the decision by rejecting the “program-specific”
interpretation
ii. Court held that because the university as a whole received federal monies, Title
IX governs its intercollegiate athletic department
iii. Temple reached an agreement with all plaintiffs to expand opportunities for
women
b. Grove City College v. Bell (1984)
i. Limited the Title IX enforcement to only those areas of a schools that received
federal assistance, thus not athletic departments. This became the overriding
guideline until 1987
c. Civil Rights Restoration Act (1987)
i. US Congress clarified this issue when it specifically declared that Title IX did
apple to athletic programs across the country. This was accomplished by
overriding President Reagan’s veto
d. Franklin v. Gwinnet County Public Schools (1992)
i. Victims of discrimination under Title IX could be entitled to monetary damages
e. Cohen v. Brown University (1997)
i. Three pronged tests
1. Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and
female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to
their respective enrollments
2. Where the members of one gender have been, and are, underrepresented
among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history
and continuing practice of program expansion that is demonstrably
responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of
that gender
3. Where the members of one gender are underrepresented among
intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing
practice of program expansion, whether it can be demonstrated that the
interests and abilities of the members of that gender have been fully and
effectively accommodated by the present program
f. Boucher v. Syracuse Univeristy, 164 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1999)
i. Female softball and volleyball students under Title IX citing that Syracuse did
not “effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of the students.” The
court indicated that the school WOULD be able to take refuge under the “safe
harbor” – that it showed a plan that demonstrated the university’s attempts to
increase athletic opportunities over time. While not adding sports for over 14
years, the schools was in the process of adding three women’s teams, including
softball and volleyball. Thus, the court found the case moot
g. Pederson v. LSU, 213 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2000)
i. Title IX case where LSU argued that “women are less interested in sports than
men”. Court called “arrogant ignorance” and the sides settled quickly
h. Reverse Discrimination Cases
i. Since the late 1980s, universities have cumulatively eliminated 170 men’s
wrestling teams, 100 men’s gymnastic teams, and 65 men’s swimming teams
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Title ix cases, haffer v. temple university (1982, some female students challenged temple university"s athletic department with discrimination under title ix. Temple argued for a summary judgment claiming the athletic department did not receive federal funds and thus should be exempt from title ix enforcement. The lower court held that title ix was applicable and the appeals court upheld the decision by rejecting the program-specific interpretation: court held that because the university as a whole received federal monies, title. This became the overriding guideline until 1987: civil rights restoration act (1987, us congress clarified this issue when it specifically declared that title ix did apple to athletic programs across the country. While not adding sports for over 14 years, the schools was in the process of adding three women"s teams, including softball and volleyball. Thus, the court found the case moot: pederson v. lsu, 213 f. 3d 858 (5th cir.
