Barry McCormick on Behalf of His Minor Daughter Katherine and Josef Geldwert, on Behalf of His Minor Daughter Emily v. The School District of Mamaroneck and the School District of Pelham
Docket: 03-7892
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 4, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Defendants-Appellants, the School Districts of Mamaroneck and Pelham, appeal a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which found that scheduling girls' high school soccer in the spring and boys' in the fall violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This scheduling practice denied girls the opportunity to compete in the New York Regional and State Championships, thereby infringing on their rights to equal athletic opportunities. The plaintiffs, Barry McCormick and Josef Geldwert, representing their daughters, argued that this scheduling decision was discriminatory. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, emphasizing that the School Districts failed to demonstrate any compensating advantages for girls in their athletic programs. However, the court indicated that modifications to the injunction were necessary and remanded the case for further proceedings. The background established that the New York State Public High School Athletic Association allows schools to determine their sports scheduling, with a significant majority of schools offering girls' soccer in the fall, highlighting the disparity faced by female athletes in the School Districts.
Girls' soccer teams at Section I schools, such as Pelham and Mamaroneck, began playing in the spring 15 years ago due to the popularity of field hockey. Despite competing in the Section I spring league championships, these teams cannot advance to Regional or State Championships, which occur in the fall, while boys' soccer teams participate in both fall and championship events. The plaintiffs, Barry McCormick and Josef Geldwert, filed a lawsuit in April 2002, alleging Title IX violations on behalf of their daughters, Katherine and Emily, both of whom are soccer players. At the time of filing, Katherine was a freshman at Pelham and Emily was a freshman at Mamaroneck. Due to an injury, Katherine missed playing in her freshman year, whereas Emily played during the spring of 2002.
Both girls qualified for the Olympic Development Program (ODP) in 2003, which schedules practices and tournaments in the spring, creating conflicts because their high school soccer season is also in the spring. In contrast, boys' soccer is played in the fall, avoiding such conflicts. Additionally, both girls participate in club soccer, which further complicates their schedules. Emily missed high school games due to club commitments and faced reduced playing time as a consequence. They have expressed a desire to play in the fall, alongside their male counterparts, to compete in Regional and State Championships. Both girls currently wish to compete for higher titles, emphasizing the disparity in opportunities between boys and girls in their schools.
Plaintiffs presented an expert report by Christopher Lyn, a former assistant women's soccer coach at Iona College, highlighting disadvantages for girls playing high school soccer in the spring. Lyn argues that college coaches recruit during the fall season, particularly at regional and state championships, which spring players miss, resulting in fewer recruitment opportunities. He notes that by the time spring players are seen, many college recruiting slots have already been filled. Lyn also emphasizes that high-level club tournaments, including the New York State Cup and ODP, are scheduled in the spring, leading to overscheduling, increased injury risks, and player burnout.
In contrast, the School Districts provided affidavits from coaches at Cornell University, Old Dominion University, and Dominican College, who stated that they do not see disadvantages for spring players, as they focus on club-level recruitment during that time. Furthermore, surveys conducted by athletics directors showed a majority of female athletes preferred soccer in the spring, with many expressing that state championship opportunities were not important to them. An email by Josef Geldwert prompted mixed responses from Mamaroneck families regarding the timing of soccer. Mamaroneck and Pelham offer a range of sports for boys and girls across seasons, with both districts fielding multiple teams at various levels, though specifics on winter sports offerings remain unstated.
In Mamaroneck, nine teams share five fields during the fall season, with baseball diamond renovations limiting practice space due to football teams using the outfield. The renovation is projected to conclude by spring 2004. Pelham has three fields for seven teams in the fall, with one varsity soccer coach managing both girls' and boys' teams, while Mamaroneck has one soccer coach. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to move girls' soccer to the fall, which was denied by the District Court. However, following a trial on stipulated facts, the court found that the School Districts' scheduling decision violated Title IX, granting the plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief. The court mandated that each School District create a plan to offer soccer to both genders in the same season, effective the academic year after the appellate decision. The judgment is stayed pending appeal.
The School Districts argue that plaintiffs Katherine McCormick and Emily Geldwert lack standing for injunctive relief, and even if they do, the scheduling does not violate Title IX. The court reviews these points de novo, focusing on whether the plaintiffs meet standing requirements. The standing criteria include suffering an injury in fact, a causal connection to the alleged conduct, and likelihood of redress through a favorable ruling. The court affirms that McCormick and Geldwert have standing, establishing that their injury is concrete and particularized, meeting the constitutional minimum for standing.
McCormick and Geldwert, high school soccer players, are directly affected by the scheduling of girls' soccer in the spring, as it prevents them from participating in a team capable of qualifying for Regional and State Championships. The plaintiffs must demonstrate an "actual or imminent" injury, as past injuries do not suffice for seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. Upon filing their complaint in April 2002, an imminent threat of injury existed due to the School Districts' refusal to schedule girls' soccer in the fall for the 2002-2003 school year. Although the School Districts argue uncertainty about the girls' participation, a stipulation confirms they would play if soccer were scheduled in the fall. McCormick and Geldwert's desire to compete in fall soccer aligns with meeting the standing requirements, as their injuries are traceable to the School Districts' conduct and can be remedied by the requested relief. The School Districts also claim the plaintiffs' claims are moot, referencing the Cook v. Colgate University case where players' claims became moot after graduating. However, McCormick and Geldwert are juniors and still eligible to play, rendering their claims not moot. Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational institutions.
Section 901 of Title IX prohibits sex-based exclusion or discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, with specific exceptions not relevant here. Since its enactment in 1972, participation of girls and women in high school sports has risen significantly, from approximately 300,000 girls and 3.67 million boys in 1971 to 2.86 million girls and 3.99 million boys in 2002. Title IX aimed to eliminate federal support for discriminatory practices and provide protection for individuals against such practices, responding to documented discrimination against women in educational opportunities revealed in 1970 congressional hearings. Although the issue of discrimination in athletics was briefly mentioned during debates, subsequent legislative efforts, like Senator Tower's proposed amendment to exempt "revenue producing" sports from Title IX, were unsuccessful. In 1974, Congress enacted the Javits Amendment, which mandated the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to create regulations for Title IX's implementation, particularly concerning intercollegiate athletics, while considering the nature of specific sports.
In 1974, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) proposed regulations to implement Title IX's requirements for athletics in educational institutions, following extensive public feedback. The final rule was published on June 4, 1975, and became effective after Congress chose not to disapprove it despite holding hearings. In 1979, HEW was reorganized into the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education (ED), with all educational functions transferred to ED, which is now responsible for administering Title IX.
The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Grove City College v. Bell established that Title IX was "program-specific," limiting its application to only the financial aid program that received federal funds. In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which mandated institution-wide compliance with Title IX if any part of the institution received federal funds. The Act reflected congressional intent to ensure equal opportunities for female athletes, as illustrated by statements from various Congress members emphasizing the importance of equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.
Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled in Cannon v. University of Chicago that Title IX includes an implied private right of action, a point not contested by the School Districts, which also acknowledge the requirement for their athletics departments to comply with Title IX.
The Department of Education's athletics regulations, outlined in 34 C.F.R. 106.41, establish standards for Title IX compliance in athletics programs. These regulations receive significant deference in legal interpretation, as Congress explicitly assigned the agency the responsibility to develop such standards. Under Title IX, no individual may be discriminated against based on sex in interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics, and equal opportunities must be provided for both sexes.
Key factors assessed by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to determine equality in athletic opportunities include: the selection of sports, equipment provision, scheduling of games and practices, travel allowances, coaching and tutoring availability, locker room and facility access, medical services, housing and dining services, and publicity.
In this case, plaintiffs argue that the School Districts fail to provide equal opportunities under the third factor—scheduling of games and practice time. Compliance is evaluated based on the equivalence of competitive events, practice opportunities, and the scheduling times for both competitions and practices, as well as access to pre-season and post-season competitions.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, particularly the Policy Interpretation published by HEW in December 1979, is central to the plaintiffs' assertion that girls in Pelham and Mamaroneck lack equal opportunities for post-season competition compared to boys. Following nearly 100 complaints of discrimination in athletics, HEW developed the Policy Interpretation to clarify Title IX compliance for schools after implementing regulations in 1975. The final version was published after extensive feedback and research, including visits to eight universities.
The parties in the case agree on the applicability of the Policy Interpretation, which is deemed persuasive and reasonable, allowing the court to avoid determining the specific type of deference to apply. Other circuits have similarly deferred to this Policy Interpretation in assessing Title IX violations, supporting the conclusion that it offers a reasonable interpretation of relevant regulations and warrants substantial deference from the courts.
Although the Policy Interpretation primarily addresses intercollegiate athletics, it is acknowledged that its principles also extend to club, intramural, and interscholastic sports. The regulations do not differentiate between types of athletic activities in their requirement for equal opportunities for both genders. Given this context, the court will apply the Policy Interpretation's principles to evaluate whether the scheduling of girls' soccer in the spring by the School Districts constitutes a violation of Title IX.
Title IX coverage is divided into three key areas: compliance in financial assistance based on athletic ability, compliance in other program areas, and compliance in meeting the interests and abilities of male and female students. The first area pertains to athletic scholarships as outlined in 34 C.F.R. 106.37(c). The second area includes factors two through ten from 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c)(2-10), focusing on ensuring equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities for male and female athletes. Claims in this area are known as "equal treatment" claims. The third area relates to factor one, which assesses whether sports selection and competition levels accommodate the interests and abilities of both sexes, referred to as "accommodation" claims.
Most circuit court rulings have focused on accommodation claims, highlighting instances where schools failed to effectively meet the athletic interests of female athletes, such as in Pederson v. La. State Univ. and Cohen v. Brown Univ. Conversely, some district courts have addressed equal treatment claims, identifying violations in scheduling and program disparities, as seen in cases like Comtys. for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n and Landow v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard County. The overarching principle in both areas is that the interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally accommodated and treated.
Summary: The state high school athletic association's motion for summary judgment was denied in a case involving female athletes who argued that the requirement for girls' teams to switch seasons with school reclassifications, while boys' teams remained in the same season, violated Title IX. In Daniels v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard County, 985 F.Supp. 1458 (M.D.Fla.1997), female varsity softball players were granted a preliminary injunction against their school for unequal benefits compared to boys' varsity baseball players. Similarly, in Cook v. Colgate Univ., 802 F.Supp. 737 (N.D.N.Y.1992), the unequal treatment of men's and women's ice hockey teams was deemed a Title IX violation, though the decision was later vacated as moot. The Policy Interpretation outlines that compliance with Title IX's general athletic program requirements hinges on comparing the availability, quality, and types of benefits, opportunities, and treatment for both sexes. Institutions must show equivalence in program components, where identical treatment is not necessary, but overall effects of differences must be negligible. Significant disparities may still be justified if attributed to nondiscriminatory factors. Compliance assessments will also consider factors like scheduling of games and practice times, with a finding of non-compliance possible if substantial disparities deny equality of athletic opportunity based on gender.
A disparity, as defined under the Policy Interpretation, refers to a negative difference based on sex in benefits, treatment, services, or opportunities available to athletes when compared to those available to the opposite sex. It is not sufficient for these benefits to merely differ; they must create a negative impact. The District Court's approach, which equated equal scheduling for men's and women's soccer, is not aligned with the Policy Interpretation. Instead, compliance with Title IX requires assessing whether any scheduling differences negatively impact one sex and if the disparity is significant enough to deny equality in athletic opportunity.
Furthermore, a disadvantage in one area can be offset by an advantage in another, provided that overall program components are equivalent. Compliance does not necessitate identical treatment across sports or teams; rather, schools can meet Title IX requirements through a program-wide assessment of benefits. In this case, scheduling girls' soccer in the spring creates a clear disparity, as boys can compete in championships while girls cannot, negatively impacting female athletes. The School Districts failed to demonstrate any compensatory advantages for female athletes, confirming that the scheduling disadvantage is not mitigated by any benefits in their athletic programs.
Girls' soccer at the Mamaroneck and Pelham schools is uniquely disadvantaged as it is scheduled in a season that prevents participation in championship games, a situation not mirrored for male athletes. The School Districts have failed to present evidence that this disparity is counterbalanced by any advantages for girls or disadvantages for boys. The disparity is substantial enough to deny girls equal athletic opportunities, as determined by the courts.
The School Districts argue that the girls' teams are unlikely to qualify for championships, citing past performance. However, this reasoning is deemed unpersuasive; a team’s performance can fluctuate year to year, and the motivation derived from the possibility of competing at a higher level is essential. Competing for a State Championship, which involves being the best among 649 teams, is fundamentally more inspiring than competing against a smaller number of teams for a sectional title.
The scheduling of girls' soccer in the spring imposes a ceiling on their achievements, contrasting with the boys' teams, which face no such limitation. This differential treatment undermines Title IX's requirement for equal opportunities in athletics, implying that the school does not value the girls' athletic potential equally. Furthermore, the Districts’ claim that girls are less interested in winning is challenged, with reference to a legal precedent that emphasizes how interest in sports develops through opportunity and experience. Title IX aims to address discrimination stemming from outdated stereotypes regarding women's interests and abilities. Allowing a lack-of-interest defense based on participation numbers would contradict Title IX's remedial purpose.
Title IX is characterized as an evolving statute aimed at achieving equal athletic opportunities for all genders, acknowledging that societal conditioning has historically led to women's lower participation in sports. The historical context reveals that women faced significant barriers due to stereotypes that labeled competitive sports as unfeminine. Despite improvements in societal attitudes towards women in sports, there remains a disparity in how achievements of male and female athletes are valued. This disparity should not influence the assessment of opportunities denied to female athletes under Title IX, which mandates equal athletic opportunities for both genders.
The School Districts argue that plaintiffs McCormick and Geldwert's focus on soccer over other sports does not constitute a Title IX violation, suggesting that differences in a single sport are not significant if overall opportunities are similar. However, this perspective overlooks the importance of evaluating whether specific disparities within a program are substantial enough to deny equality. The relevant Policy Interpretation emphasizes the necessity of analyzing sport-specific needs and justifications for differences in program components, indicating that equivalent opportunities must be met across both men's and women's programs to avoid violations of Title IX.
The applicable statute, regulations, and Policy Interpretation do not preclude the possibility of a significant disparity in a single sport leading to a denial of equal athletic opportunity. The characterization of McCormick and Geldwert's dedication to soccer as "single-mindedness" is deemed irrelevant; in contrast, "well-rounded" is not typically associated with elite athletes. The opportunity for boys to compete in Regional and State Championships for soccer, while girls are denied this opportunity, constitutes a substantial disparity affecting equality for female athletes at Pelham and Mamaroneck high schools.
The Policy Interpretation allows for justifications of unequal treatment if differences arise from nondiscriminatory factors, but the School Districts failed to justify scheduling girls' soccer in the spring. Their reasons, including field space limitations, hiring additional coaches, and potential shortages of officials, do not constitute valid nondiscriminatory justifications. Financial constraints in complying with Title IX are not a defense. The schools have not shown that finding field space for girls' soccer is impossible or would lead to inadequate practice conditions. The scheduling issue could be resolved by moving boys' soccer to the spring, allowing both genders to play in the fall.
Additionally, concerns about girls having to choose between soccer and other fall sports are unfounded, as they currently face similar choices in the spring. Thus, the School Districts could comply with Title IX by alternating soccer seasons for boys and girls, ensuring equity in athletic opportunities. The case does not necessitate determining the legitimacy of an "administrative hardship defense" regarding disparities in athletic opportunities.
Some girls already committed to spring soccer and another fall sport may resist changing the soccer season; however, this issue is temporary as younger girls will choose fall soccer without disruption. Accepting this resistance as a valid reason for unequal treatment under Title IX could allow schools to schedule girls' sports out of season while boys' sports are scheduled in season, undermining equity. The affidavits and surveys from Pelham and Mamaroneck schools do not adequately represent the preferences of all female students, focusing only on current soccer players and including limited responses from 16 girls, leaving the completeness of the data unclear.
The School Districts argue that girls have played soccer in the spring for fifteen years due to the popularity of field hockey, fearing that moving soccer to the fall would lead to declining participation in soccer. However, there is no substantiated reason why both sports cannot coexist in the same season, as relocating soccer may enable athletes who currently play other spring sports to participate without conflicts. The School Districts' concerns about insufficient athlete numbers if soccer is moved to fall are unsupported by convincing data.
Additionally, the Districts claim that moving soccer would reduce spring sports opportunities for girls, potentially leaving many without activities. Yet, they fail to demonstrate that girls in Pelham and Mamaroneck would lack athletic options in spring; girls could still engage in track, lacrosse, softball, or golf. Currently, boys have only three fall sports options. If soccer's relocation results in fewer spring opportunities, schools could introduce new sports or expand participation in existing ones. Notably, 649 schools in New York successfully offer girls' soccer in the fall.
The School Districts failed to provide sufficient evidence that other spring sports could not accommodate girls or that they could not add another spring sport. Consequently, their decision to schedule girls' soccer in the spring, which prevents participation in Regional and State Championships, lacks justification. While scheduling a sport outside the championship season may be permissible under Title IX in certain circumstances, the School Districts did not adequately justify the unequal competitive opportunities afforded to girls compared to boys, constituting a violation of Title IX.
Additionally, the School Districts' claim that they effectively accommodate girls' interests and abilities through flawed survey data does not exempt them from Title IX violations. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) evaluates compliance based on whether the selection of sports and competition levels effectively accommodates both sexes' interests and abilities. This includes assessing the determination of athletic interests, the selection of sports offered, and the levels of competition available. The Policy Interpretation emphasizes that both sexes must have equal opportunities for intercollegiate competition and team schedules that reflect their abilities.
Compliance with Title IX is evaluated through a "three-part test" concerning intercollegiate athletics. Institutions must demonstrate compliance by providing participation opportunities in numbers proportionate to student enrollment for both sexes, showing a history of program expansion in response to the interests of an underrepresented sex, or ensuring that the current programs effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of that sex. Most Title IX litigation focuses on this test, particularly in cases where schools have reduced opportunities for female athletes, as seen in cases like Cohen v. Brown University and Boucher v. Syracuse University. Institutions can be deemed compliant if they meet any one of the three criteria.
Additionally, compliance is further assessed through a two-part test related to competitive opportunities, which examines whether the competitive schedules for men's and women's teams provide similar advanced opportunities and whether there is a history of improving competitive chances for the historically disadvantaged sex. Consequently, the three-part test addresses participation opportunities, while the two-part test focuses on competitive equality.
The OCR evaluates both the participation opportunities and the quality of competition for male and female athletes in intercollegiate athletics under Title IX. It emphasizes that nondiscriminatory participation is just one aspect of compliance; the quality of competition must also reflect the athletes' abilities. Plaintiffs' claims regarding championship game participation pertain to competitive schedules, not participation opportunities. The School Districts have failed to demonstrate equivalent competitive opportunities for male and female athletes. The District Court has correctly ordered the School Districts to create compliance plans for Title IX, specifically suggesting that offering soccer for both genders in the same season would facilitate compliance. However, alternating seasons is also permissible if girls are scheduled for the upcoming fall 2004 season. The focus remains on ensuring equal post-season competition opportunities. The District Court will oversee the compliance plan submissions, which must be in effect for the 2004-2005 school year, ensuring that girls' soccer teams will compete in the fall of 2004 regardless of the chosen scheduling plan.
The District Court's ruling is upheld, confirming that the scheduling of girls' high school soccer in the spring and boys' soccer in the fall by the School Districts of Mamaroneck and Pelham violates Title IX, depriving girls of equal competitive opportunities in the New York Regional and State Championships. The court modifies the injunction, allowing the Districts to propose a plan that either alternates the fall soccer season between genders or permanently moves girls' soccer to the fall, mandating that girls' soccer must be scheduled in the fall of 2004. The case is remanded to the District Court for plan submission and approval oversight. Plaintiffs are awarded costs.
Additional context includes the dismissal of a separate Equal Protection Clause claim and the withdrawal of claims against the School District of Rye. It is noted that responses to surveys regarding scheduling preferences were limited and did not provide a comprehensive view of the student body. The categorization of cheerleading as a sport is acknowledged but not contested in this case, and the legal implications of such categorization under Title IX regulations are not addressed.
Title IX guidance issued to educational authorities clarified that activities such as drill teams and cheerleading are considered extracurricular and not part of a school's athletic program under the relevant regulations. A contrasting note from the Office for Civil Rights in 2000 indicated that while cheerleading generally isn't presumed a sport, evaluations are made on a case-by-case basis.
The School Districts referenced **Boucher v. Syracuse University**, where plaintiffs, former members of club teams, were found to lack standing to claim unequal benefits for varsity female athletes due to their non-varsity status and graduation. They argued similarly regarding McCormick and Geldwert, who did not play for their high school teams in 2003. However, this case differs as both parties have agreed that they would participate if soccer were moved to the fall.
The court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) for appeals related to injunctions. The District Court mandated that plans be developed to offer soccer to both genders in the same season. While **Taylor v. Board of Education** established that orders requiring plans for desegregation were generally not appealable, **Spates v. Manson** identified exceptions when the order includes additional injunctive relief or when the plan's content has been largely defined by the court. In this instance, since the content of the required plan has been substantially defined, the District Court's order is deemed appealable.
Senator Birch Bayh sponsored Title IX, emphasizing the need for strong legal protections against discrimination that relegates women to second-class citizenship. He described Title IX as a crucial step toward ensuring women have equal opportunities in education and employment. The regulations permit separate athletic teams based on competitive skill or contact sports, but if a school has a team for one sex and not the other, excluded members must be allowed to try out, unless it is a contact sport. Unequal funding for male and female teams does not automatically indicate noncompliance, but insufficient funding for one sex may impact the assessment of equality in opportunity. The Investigator's Manual, while not directly relied upon by the parties, has been referenced in other circuits and is considered persuasive in interpreting Title IX compliance. The New York State School Boards Association argues that compliance assessments should reflect the overall athletics program of a school. Additionally, noteworthy events included the University of Connecticut's women's basketball team winning the NCAA championship, highlighting the importance of scheduling in providing equal opportunities. Lastly, statements from some female players regarding the significance of state championship opportunities do not diminish the importance of access to such competitions.
The denial of participation in the Regional and State Championships is viewed as a significant infringement on equal athletic opportunities for girls. The analysis does not require exploration of potential conflicts between club and ODP soccer schedules and high school soccer in the spring, nor does it need to assess the impact of the spring schedule on college recruitment opportunities. The Policy Interpretation acknowledges that some disparities in men's and women's athletics may be justified due to unique aspects inherent to specific sports, particularly football. If gender-specific needs are met equivalently, any differences in program components can be justified.
Furthermore, fluctuations in recruitment activity may arise from annual team needs, provided they do not undermine overall equality of opportunity. Increased management costs for widely attended sports do not violate Title IX as long as the management support for both genders is based on gender-neutral criteria. Schools are permitted to implement voluntary affirmative action to address historical participation disparities.
The schools failed to provide data on practice lengths and frequency, undermining claims that moving girls' soccer to fall would significantly reduce practice times. An alternative schedule might not be viable, as opposition from boys and their parents is anticipated. A suggestion is made to test the feasibility of moving boys' soccer to the spring. Such changes could hinder participation in other sports, and the administrative challenges of alternating schedules may exceed those of a permanent switch for girls' soccer. Finally, it is noted that some surveyed girls might have responded differently to the idea of moving soccer if they knew additional spring sports would be added. The document refrains from determining whether championship opportunities are included in the definition of "levels of competition" or if equal athletic opportunity claims should be framed as accommodation claims.
Plaintiffs have established that their inability to participate in the fall season, which prevents them from competing for Regional and State Championships, results in irreparable harm. This is supported by case law, including Roberts v. Colorado State Bd. of Agric., which affirmed that monetary relief is insufficient when Title IX violations deprive individuals of athletic opportunities. The court emphasizes that individual relief for plaintiffs is both sensible and necessary for effective Title IX enforcement. The determination of irreparable harm negates the need to evaluate the District Court's claim that a Title IX violation inherently results in irreparable damage. While the court agrees with the District Court's decision to grant injunctive relief, it disagrees with the assessment of harm to female athletes favoring the status quo versus those wanting a fall soccer season. The opinions of the so-called "majority" of female soccer players, as indicated by survey data, are deemed to hold limited weight in the context of the necessity for injunctive relief. Ultimately, the court concludes that the prevention of competition in the Regional and State Championships constitutes significant harm.
