You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Evan Ng v. Board of Regents of the U of M

Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-1505

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; April 5, 2023; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a legal dispute between a male gymnast and the University of Minnesota following the elimination of the men's gymnastics team. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the team, claiming sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The University had earlier decided to cut several men's teams, including gymnastics, as part of a compliance plan to address financial constraints and Title IX requirements. The district court denied the injunction, citing the plaintiff's delay in filing as a critical factor that weakened his claim of irreparable harm, and ruled that the University's actions met the appropriate scrutiny standard. The court applied the Dataphase factors, finding that the balance of harms and public interest favored the University's compliance efforts. The plaintiff's Equal Protection claim was dismissed as a collateral attack on Title IX. On appeal, the court upheld the district court's decision, affirming the denial of the preliminary injunction based on the unreasonable delay and lack of demonstrated irreparable harm.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Dataphase Factors

Application: The court applied the Dataphase factors in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, finding the delay weakened the claim of irreparable harm and therefore did not necessitate further analysis.

Reasoning: The district court denied this motion after applying the Dataphase factors, finding Ng did not demonstrate irreparable harm due to a 13-month delay in filing.

Equal Protection Clause and Title IX

Application: Ng's claim of sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause was deemed a collateral attack on Title IX, which was not successful.

Reasoning: It also deemed his Equal Protection claim a collateral attack on Title IX.

Preliminary Injunction: Irreparable Harm and Delay

Application: The court considers unreasonable delay in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction as undermining claims of irreparable harm.

Reasoning: Ng's delay in seeking the injunction as undermining his claim of irreparable harm, and determined that the other factors for granting a preliminary injunction favored the University.

Title IX Compliance: University Athletics

Application: The University eliminated certain men's sports teams, including men's gymnastics, as part of a compliance plan to address Title IX requirements amid financial constraints.

Reasoning: The University considered adding a new female athletics team to address the disparity but estimated the cost at approximately $3.5 million. Ultimately, it implemented a compliance plan that involved cutting several men's teams, including men’s gymnastics, to manage the budget and achieve compliance with Title IX.