Cohen v. Brown University ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



    _________________________

    No. 92-2483

    AMY COHEN, ET AL.,

    Plaintiffs, Appellees,

    v.

    BROWN UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellants.

    _________________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

    [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
    __________________________

    _________________________

    Before

    Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    _________________________

    Jeffrey S. Michaelson, with whom Julius C. Michaelson,
    _______________________ ______________________
    Michaelson & Michaelson, and Beverly E. Ledbetter were on brief,
    _______________________ ____________________
    for appellants.
    Lynette Labinger, with whom Roney & Labinger, Sandra L.
    _________________ _________________ __________
    Duggan, Kronfeld, Newberg & Duggan, Arthur H. Bryant, Trial
    ______ ____________________________ _________________ _____
    Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C., Raymond Marcaccio, Blish &
    ___________________________________ __________________ ________
    Cavanagh, Amato A. DeLuca, and Mandell, DeLuca & Schwartz, Ltd.
    ________ ________________ _________________________________
    were on brief, for appellees.
    Linda S. Stein, Margaret M. Clark, Steptoe & Johnson, Ellen
    ______________ __________________ _________________ _____
    J. Vargyas, and Deborah L. Brake on brief for National Women's
    ___________ _________________
    Law Center, Woman's Sports Foundation, and National Association
    for Girls and Women in Sport, amici curiae.

    _________________________


    April 16, 1993
    _________________________















    SELYA, Circuit Judge. In this watershed case,
    SELYA, Circuit Judge.
    _______________

    defendants-appellants Brown University, Vartan Gregorian, and

    David Roach appeal from the district court's issuance of a

    preliminary injunction ordering Brown to reinstate its women's

    gymnastics and volleyball programs to full intercollegiate

    varsity status pending the resolution of a Title IX claim.1 See
    ___

    Cohen v. Brown Univ., 809 F. Supp. 978 (D.R.I. 1992). After
    _____ ___________

    mapping Title IX's rugged legal terrain and cutting a passable

    swath through the factual thicket that overspreads the parties'

    arguments, we affirm.

    I. BROWN ATHLETICS: AN OVERVIEW
    I. BROWN ATHLETICS: AN OVERVIEW

    College athletics, particularly in the realm of

    football and basketball, has traditionally occupied a prominent

    role in American sports and American society. For college

    students, athletics offers an opportunity to exacuate leadership

    skills, learn teamwork, build self-confidence, and perfect self-

    discipline. In addition, for many student-athletes, physical

    skills are a passport to college admissions and scholarships,

    allowing them to attend otherwise inaccessible schools. These

    opportunities, and the lessons learned on the playing fields, are

    invaluable in attaining career and life successes in and out of

    professional sports.

    The highway of opportunity runs in both directions.

    ____________________

    1The individual defendants are, respectively, the President
    and Athletic Director of the University. Each is sued in his
    official capacity. For ease in reference, we discuss this appeal
    as if Brown was the sole defendant and appellant. Nonetheless,
    our opinion applies equally to all parties.

    2














    Not only student-athletes, but universities, too, benefit from

    the magic of intercollegiate sports. Successful teams generate

    television revenues and gate receipts which often fund

    significant percentages of a university's overall athletic

    program, offering students the opportunity to partake of sports

    that are not financially self-sustaining. Even those

    institutions whose teams do not fill the grandstands of cavernous

    stadiums or attract national television exposure benefit from

    increased student and alumni cohesion and the support it

    engenders. Thus, universities nurture the legends, great or

    small, inhering in their athletic past, polishing the hardware

    that adorns field-house trophy cases and reliving heroic exploits

    in the pages of alumni magazines.

    In these terms, Brown will never be confused with Notre

    Dame or the more muscular members of the Big Ten. Although its

    football team did play in the 1916 Rose Bowl and its men's

    basketball team won the Ivy League championship as recently as

    1986, Brown's athletic program has only occasionally achieved

    national prominence or, for that matter, enjoyed sustained

    success.2 Moreover, at Brown, as at most schools, women are a

    relatively inconspicuous part of the storied athletic past.

    Historically, colleges limited athletics to the male sphere,

    leaving those few women's teams that sprouted to scrounge for

    resources.

    ____________________

    2We note, not without a certain irony, that the now-demoted
    women's volleyball and gymnastics teams won Ivy League
    championships in 1988 and 1990, respectively.

    3














    The absence of women's athletics at Brown was, until

    1970, an ineluctable consequence of the absence of women; Brown

    sponsored a women's college Pembroke but did not itself admit

    women. In 1971, Brown subsumed Pembroke. Brown promptly

    upgraded Pembroke's rather primitive athletic offerings so that

    by 1977 there were fourteen women's varsity teams. In subsequent

    years, Brown added only one distaff team: winter track. Hence,

    in the 1991-92 academic year, Brown fielded fifteen women's

    varsity teams one fewer than the number of men's varsity teams.

    II. THE PLAINTIFF CLASS
    II. THE PLAINTIFF CLASS

    In the spring of 1991, Brown announced that it, like

    many other schools, was in a financial bind, and that, as a belt-

    tightening measure, it planned to drop four sports from its

    intercollegiate varsity athletic roster: women's volleyball and

    gymnastics, men's golf and water polo. The University permitted

    the teams to continue playing as "intercollegiate clubs," a

    status that allowed them to compete against varsity teams from

    other colleges,3 but cut off financial subsidies and support

    services routinely available to varsity teams (e.g., salaried
    ____

    coaches, access to prime facilities, preferred practice time,

    medical trainers, clerical assistance, office support, admission

    preferences, and the like). Brown estimated that eliminating


    ____________________

    3As a practical matter, many schools with varsity squads are
    reluctant to compete against club teams. This case aptly
    illustrates the point. As soon as Brown demoted its women's
    volleyball team from varsity to club status, Northeastern
    University and West Point declined to include Brown on future
    volleyball schedules. See Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 993.
    ___ _____

    4














    these four varsity teams would save $77,813 per annum, broken

    down as follows: women's volleyball, $37,127; women's

    gymnastics, $24,901; men's water polo, $9,250; men's golf,

    $6,545.

    Before the cuts, Brown athletics offered an aggregate

    of 328 varsity slots for female athletes and 566 varsity slots

    for male athletes. Thus, women had 36.7% of the athletic

    opportunities and men 63.3%. Abolishing the four varsity teams

    took substantially more dollars from the women's athletic budget

    than from the men's budget, but did not materially affect the

    athletic opportunity ratios; women retained 36.6% of the

    opportunities and men 63.4%. At that time (and for a number of

    years prior thereto), Brown's student body comprised

    approximately 52% men and 48% women.

    Following Brown's announcement of the cutbacks,

    disappointed members of the women's volleyball and gymnastics

    teams brought suit. They proceeded on an implied cause of action

    under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688 (1988). See Franklin v.
    ___ ________

    Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 112 S. Ct. 1028, 1032 (1992)
    ____________________________

    (recognizing implied private right of action under Title IX);

    Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 717 (1979) (same);
    ______ _____________________

    see also Cannon, 441 U.S. at 687 n.8 (holding that exhaustion of
    ___ ____ ______

    administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a Title IX

    suit). The plaintiffs charged that Brown's athletic arrangements

    violated Title IX's ban on gender-based discrimination, a

    violation that was allegedly exacerbated by Brown's decision to


    5














    devalue the two women's programs without first making sufficient

    reductions in men's activities or, in the alternative, adding

    other women's teams to compensate for the loss.



    On plaintiffs' motion, the district court certified a

    class of "all present and future Brown University women students

    and potential students who participate, seek to participate,

    and/or are deterred from participating in intercollegiate

    athletics funded by Brown." And, after hearing fourteen days of

    testimony from twenty witnesses, the judge granted a preliminary

    injunction requiring Brown to reinstate the two women's teams

    pending the outcome of a full trial on the merits. See Cohen,
    ___ _____

    809 F. Supp. at 1001. We stayed execution of the order and

    expedited Brown's appeal.

    III. TITLE IX AND COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
    III. TITLE IX AND COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

    Title IX prohibits gender-based discrimination by

    educational institutions receiving federal financial support in

    practice, the vast majority of all accredited colleges and

    universities. The statute sketches wide policy lines, leaving

    the details to regulating agencies. Since this appeal demands

    that we invade terra incognita,4 we carefully recount the
    _____ _________

    ____________________

    4Although there has been a spate of sports-related Title IX
    suits during the last two years, see Andrew Blum, Athletics in
    ___ ____________
    the Courts, Nat'l L.J., Apr. 5, 1993, at 1, few have been fully
    ___________
    litigated. See, e.g., Carol Herwig, Massachusetts Reinstates
    ___ ____ ________________________
    Women's Sports, USA Today, Oct. 22, 1992, at 14C (announcing
    _______________
    agreement to reinstate three women's teams at the University of
    Massachusetts and reporting the school's intention to become "the
    first university in the country to come into full compliance with
    Title IX"). While the case we decide today is apparently the

    6














    developments leading to the present version of Title IX and then

    examine the pertinent statutory and regulatory language.



    A. Scope of Title IX.
    A. Scope of Title IX.
    _________________

    At its inception, the broad proscriptive language of

    Title IX caused considerable consternation in the academic world.

    The academy's anxiety chiefly centered around identifying which

    individual programs, particularly in terms of athletics, might

    come within the scope of the discrimination provision, and,

    relatedly, how the government would determine compliance. The

    gridiron fueled these concerns: for many schools, the men's

    football budget far exceeded that of any other sport, and men's

    athletics as a whole received the lion's share of dedicated

    resources a share that, typically, was vastly disproportionate

    to the percentage of men in the student body.

    Part of the confusion about the scope of Title IX's

    coverage and the acceptable avenues of compliance arose from the

    absence of secondary legislative materials. Congress included no

    committee report with the final bill and there were apparently

    only two mentions of intercollegiate athletics during the

    congressional debate. See 118 Cong. Rec. 5,807 (1972) (statement
    ___

    of Sen. Bayh on privacy in athletic facilities); 117 Cong. Rec.

    30,407 (1971) (statement of Sen. Bayh noting that proposed Title


    ____________________

    first of these to reach the courts of appeals, others are
    pending. See, e.g., Roberts v. Colorado State Univ., No. 93-1052
    ___ ____ _______ ____________________
    (10th Cir. 1993) (not yet argued); Cook v. Colgate Univ., No. 92-
    ____ _____________
    9175 (2d Cir. 1993) (argued Feb. 26, 1993).

    7














    IX will not require gender-blended football teams).

    Nevertheless, under congressional direction to implement Title

    IX, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW)

    promulgated regulations in 1975 which included specific

    provisions for college athletics. Four years later, HEW's Office

    of Civil Rights (OCR) added another layer of regulatory exegesis

    when, after notice and comment, it published a "Policy

    Interpretation" that offered a more detailed measure of equal

    athletic opportunity.

    In 1984, the Supreme Court radically altered the

    contemporary reading of Title IX. The Court held that Title IX

    was "program-specific," so that its tenets applied only to the

    program(s) which actually received federal funds and not to the

    rest of the university. Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S.
    ___________________ ____

    555, 574 (1984). Because few athletic departments are direct

    recipients of federal funds most federal money for universities

    is channelled through financial aid offices or invested directly

    in research grants Grove City cabined Title IX and placed
    __________

    virtually all collegiate athletic programs beyond its reach.5

    In response to Grove City, Congress scrapped the
    ___________

    program-specific approach and reinstated an institution-wide

    application of Title IX by passing the Civil Rights Restoration


    ____________________

    5Following the Court's decision in Grove City, the United
    __________
    States Department of Education (which by then had been spun off
    from HEW, see infra Part III(C)) dropped or curtailed seventy-
    ___ _____
    nine ongoing Title IX cases. See Statements on Civil Rights
    ___ ___________________________
    Restoration Act, Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 53, at D1 (Mar. 20,
    ________________
    1981).

    8














    Act of 1987, 20 U.S.C. 1687 (1988). The Restoration Act

    required that if any arm of an educational institution received

    federal funds, the institution as a whole must comply with Title

    IX's provisions. See id.; see also S. Rep. No. 64, 100th Cong.,
    ___ ___ ___ ____

    2d Sess. 4 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 6
    _________ __

    (explaining that Congress wanted to prohibit discrimination

    throughout an institution if the institution received any federal

    funds). Although the Restoration Act does not specifically

    mention sports, the record of the floor debate leaves little

    doubt that the enactment was aimed, in part, at creating a more

    level playing field for female athletes. See, e.g., 130 Cong.
    ___ ____

    Rec. S12,642 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1984) (statement of Sen. Byrd

    decrying past discrimination against female athletes); 130 Cong.

    Rec. S11,253 (daily ed. Sept. 17, 1984) (statement of Sen. Hatch

    regarding importance of Title IX to ensuring development of women

    athletes); 130 Cong. Rec. S2,267 (daily ed. Mar. 2, 1984)

    (statement of Sen. Riegle noting extensive evidence of sex

    discrimination in education and athletics).

    The appellants do not challenge the district court's

    finding that, under existing law, Brown's athletic department is

    subject to Title IX. Accordingly, we devote the remainder of

    Part III to deterrating the meaning of Title IX, looking first at

    the statute and then at the regulations.

    B. Statutory Framework.
    B. Statutory Framework.
    ___________________

    Title IX, like the Restoration Act, does not explicitly




    9














    treat college athletics.6 Rather, the statute's heart is a

    broad prohibition of gender-based discrimination in all

    programmatic aspects of educational institutions:

    No person in the United States shall, on
    the basis of sex, be excluded from
    participation in, be denied the benefits of,
    or be subjected to discrimination under any
    education program or activity receiving
    Federal financial assistance . . . .

    20 U.S.C. 1681(a) (1988). After listing a number of exempt

    organizations, section 1681 makes clear that, while Title IX

    prohibits discrimination, it does not mandate strict numerical

    equality between the gender balance of a college's athletic

    program and the gender balance of its student body. Thus,

    section 1681(a) shall not

    be interpreted to require any educational
    institution to grant preferential or
    disparate treatment to the members of one sex
    on account of an imbalance which may exist
    with respect to the total number or
    percentage of persons of that sex
    participating in or receiving the benefits of
    any federally supported program or activity,
    in comparison with the total number or
    percentage of persons of that sex in any
    community, State, section, or other area:
    Provided, That this subsection shall not be
    ________
    construed to prevent the consideration in any
    hearing or proceeding under this chapter of
    statistical evidence tending to show that
    such an imbalance exists with respect to the
    participation in, or receipt of the benefits
    of, any such program or activity by the
    members of one sex.


    ____________________

    6This lacuna apparently results from a political compromise.
    After the Conference Committee deleted an amendment to Title IX
    that would have exempted "revenue-producing" athletics, Congress
    asked the Secretary of HEW to provide regulations specifically
    governing athletics. See 44 Fed. Reg. 71,413 (1979).
    ___

    10














    20 U.S.C. 1681(b) (1988). Put another way, a court assessing

    Title IX compliance may not find a violation solely because there
    ______

    is a disparity between the gender composition of an educational

    institution's student constituency, on the one hand, and its

    athletic programs, on the other hand.

    That is not to say, however, that evidence of such a

    disparity is irrelevant. Quite the contrary: under the proviso

    contained in section 1681(b), a Title IX plaintiff in an athletic

    discrimination suit must accompany statistical evidence of

    disparate impact with some further evidence of discrimination,

    such as unmet needamongst the members of thedisadvantaged gender.

    C. Regulatory Framework.
    C. Regulatory Framework.
    ____________________

    As we mentioned above, the Secretary of HEW, following

    Congress's instructions, promulgated regulations implementing

    Title IX in the pre-Grove City era. See 40 Fed. Reg. 24,128
    __________ ___

    (1975). Thereafter, in 1979, Congress split HEW into the

    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department

    of Education (DED). See 20 U.S.C. 3401-3510 (1988). In a
    ___

    wonderful example of bureaucratic muddle, the existing Title IX

    regulations were left within HHS's arsenal while, at the same

    time, DED replicated them as part of its own regulatory

    armamentarium. Compare 45 C.F.R. 86 (1992) (HHS regulations)
    _______

    with 34 C.F.R. 106 (1992) (DED regulations). Both sets of
    ____

    regulations were still in effect when the Restoration Act passed.

    They are identical, save only for changes in nomenclature

    reflecting the reorganization of the federal bureaucracy.


    11














    In short, like pretenders to the emirate of a deceased

    sheik, both HHS and DED lay an hereditary claim to this oasis

    which arises from the regulatory desert, asserting authority to

    enforce Title IX. Nevertheless, DED is the principle locus of

    ongoing enforcement activity. See 20 U.S.C. 3441(a)(1)
    ___

    (transferring all education functions of HEW to DED); see also 20
    ___ ____

    U.S.C. 3441(a)(3) (transferring education-related OCR work to

    DED). Therefore, like the parties, we treat DED, acting through

    its OCR, as the administrative agency charged with administering

    Title IX.7

    Recognizing the agency's role has important practical

    and legal consequences. Although DED is not a party to this

    appeal, we must accord its interpretation of Title IX appreciable

    deference. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
    ___ ___________________ _________________________

    Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984); see also Udall v.
    ______________ ___ ____ _____

    Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 (1965) (noting that the Supreme Court
    _______

    "gives great deference to the interpretation given the statute by

    the officers or agency charged with its administration"). The

    degree of deference is particularly high in Title IX cases

    because Congress explicitly delegated to the agency the task of

    prescribing standards for athletic programs under Title IX. See
    ___

    Pub. L. No. 93-380, 844, 88 Stat. 612 (1974); see also Chevron,
    ___ ____ _______

    467 U.S. at 844 (holding that where Congress has explicitly


    ____________________

    7From this point forward, we use the acronym "OCR" to refer
    to DED's Office of Civil Rights which took on the education-
    related portfolio of HEW's Office of Civil Rights in May, 1980.
    See 20 U.S.C. 3441(a)(3).
    ___

    12














    delegated responsibility to an agency, the regulation deserves

    "controlling weight"); Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 425
    _________ _______

    (1977); Alvarez-Flores v. INS, 909 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1990).
    ______________ ___

    It is against this backdrop that we scrutinize the

    regulations and the Policy Interpretation.

    1. The Regulations. DED's regulations begin by
    1. The Regulations.
    ________________

    detailing Title IX's application to college athletics.8 The

    regulations also recognize, however, that an athletic program may

    consist of gender-segregated teams as long as one of two

    conditions is met: either the sport in which the team competes

    is a contact sport or the institution offers comparable teams in

    the sport to both genders. See 34 C.F.R. 106.41(b).
    ___

    Finally, whether teams are segregated by sex or not,

    the school must provide gender-blind equality of opportunity to

    its student body. The regulations offer a non-exclusive

    compendium of ten factors which OCR will consider in assessing

    compliance with this mandate:

    (1) Whether the selection of sports and
    levels of competition effectively accommodate
    the interests and abilities of members of

    ____________________

    8The regulations provide:

    No person shall, on the basis of sex, be
    excluded from participation in, be denied the
    benefits of, be treated differently from
    another person or otherwise be discriminated
    against in any interscholastic,
    intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics
    offered by a recipient, and no recipient
    shall provide any such athletics separately
    on such basis.

    34 C.F.R. 106.41(a) (1992).

    13














    both sexes;
    (2) The provision of equipment and
    supplies;
    (3) Scheduling of games and practice
    time;
    (4) Travel and per diem allowance;
    (5) Opportunity to receive coaching and
    academic tutoring;
    (6) Assignment and compensation of
    coaches and tutors;
    (7) Provision of locker rooms, practice
    and competitive facilities;
    (8) Provision of medical and training
    facilities and services;
    (9) Provision of housing and dining
    facilities and services;
    (10) Publicity.

    34 C.F.R. 106.41(c) (1992).9 The district court rested its

    preliminary injunction on the first of these ten areas of

    inquiry: Brown's failure effectively to accommodate the

    interests and abilities of female students in the selection and

    level of sports. See Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 994. Hence, this
    ___ _____

    area is the most critical in terms of evaluating the charges

    against Brown (although it is also the most difficult to

    measure).

    2. The Policy Interpretation. In the three years next
    2. The Policy Interpretation.
    _________________________

    following the initial issuance of the regulations, HEW received

    ____________________

    9The same regulation also stipulates that:

    Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of
    each sex or unequal expenditures for male and
    female teams if a recipient operates or
    sponsors separate teams will not constitute
    noncompliance with this section, but [DED]
    may consider the failure to provide necessary
    funds for teams for one sex in assessing
    equality of opportunity for members of each
    sex.

    34 C.F.R. 106.41(c) (1992).

    14














    over one hundred discrimination complaints involving more than

    fifty schools. In order to encourage self-policing and thereby

    winnow complaints, HEW proposed a Policy Interpretation. See 43
    ___

    Fed. Reg. 58,070 (1978). It then promulgated the Policy

    Interpretation in final form, see 44 Fed. Reg. 71,413 (1979), a
    ___

    matter of months before the effective date of the statute through

    which Congress, emulating King Solomon, split HEW. The parties

    are in agreement that, at DED's birth, it clutched the Policy

    Interpretation, and, as a practical matter, that appears to be

    the case.10 See, e.g., DED, Title IX Athletics Investigator's
    ___ ____ __________________________________

    Manual 1, 2 (1990) (Manual); see also Complaint Letter from
    ______ ___ ____

    Regional Civil Rights Director, DED, to Dr. Martin Massengale,

    Chancellor, Univ. of Nebraska (July 10, 1989) (noting that DED

    "ha[s] followed the directions provided in the Policy

    Interpretation"); Complaint Letter from Regional Civil Rights

    Director, DED, to Dr. Charles A. Walker, Chancellor, Univ. of

    Arkansas (Sept. 1, 1989) (same). Although we can find no record

    that DED formally adopted the Policy Interpretation, we see no

    point to splitting the hair, particularly where the parties have

    not asked us to do so. Because this document is a considered

    interpretation of the regulation, we cede it substantial

    deference. See Martin v. OSHRC, 111 S. Ct. 1171, 1175-76 (1991);
    ___ ______ _____


    ____________________

    10Congress clearly assigned HEW's regulatory duties in
    education to the nascent DED. See 20 U.S.C. 3441. Moreover,
    ___
    in taking up its mantle, DED adopted exactly the regulation which
    the Policy Interpretation purported to interpret sending an
    unmistakably clear signal of the agency's satisfaction with the
    Policy Interpretation.

    15














    Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430 (1988).
    __________ _______

    In line with the Supreme Court's direction that, "if we

    are to give [Title IX] the scope that its origins dictate, we

    must accord it a sweep as broad as its language," North Haven Bd.
    _______________

    of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (quoting United States
    ________ ____ _____________

    v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 801 (1966)) (collecting cases) (brackets
    _____

    in original), the Policy Interpretation limns three major areas

    of regulatory compliance:11 "Athletic Financial Assistance

    (Scholarships)," see 34 C.F.R. 106.37(c); "Equivalence in Other
    ___

    Athletic Benefits and Opportunities," see 34 C.F.R.
    ___

    106.41(c)(2)-(10); and "Effective Accommodation of Student

    Interests and Abilities," see 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c)(1). The
    ___

    court below, see Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 989, and a number of
    ___ _____

    other district courts, see, e.g., Roberts v. Colorado State
    ___ ____ _______ _______________

    Univ., ___ F. Supp. ___, ___ (D. Colo. 1993) [No. 92-Z-1310, slip
    _____

    op. at 3]; Favia v. Indiana Univ. of Pa., No. 92-2045, 1992 WL
    _____ _____________________

    436239, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 1993), have adopted this

    formulation and ruled that a university violates Title IX if it

    ineffectively accommodates student interests and abilities

    regardless of its performance in other Title IX areas.

    Equal opportunity to participate lies at the core of

    Title IX's purpose. Because the third compliance area delineates

    this heartland, we agree with the district courts that have so

    ruled and hold that, with regard to the effective accommodation

    ____________________

    11The Manual divides Title IX coverage into the same three
    areas and notes that "an investigation may be limited to less
    than all three of these major areas." Manual at 7.

    16














    of students' interests and abilities, an institution can violate

    Title IX even if it meets the "financial assistance" and

    "athletic equivalence" standards. In other words, an institution

    that offers women a smaller number of athletic opportunities than

    the statute requires may not rectify that violation simply by

    lavishing more resources on those women or achieving equivalence

    in other respects.12



    3. Measuring Effective Accommodation. The parties
    3. Measuring Effective Accommodation.
    __________________________________

    agree that the third compliance area is the field on which this

    appeal must be fought. In surveying the dimensions of this

    battleground, that is, whether an athletic program effectively

    accommodates students' interests and abilities, the Policy

    Interpretation maps a trinitarian model under which the

    university must meet at least one of three benchmarks:

    (1) Whether intercollegiate level
    participation opportunities for male and
    female students are provided in numbers
    substantially proportionate to their
    respective enrollments; or
    (2) Where the members of one sex have
    been and are underrepresented among
    intercollegiate athletes, whether the
    institution can show a history and continuing
    practice of program expansion which is
    demonstrably responsive to the developing

    ____________________

    12In any event, both the financial assistance and athletic
    equivalence standards are inapposite for present purposes. As to
    the former, Brown does not confer athletic scholarships and the
    plaintiffs do not allege that Brown has discriminated by gender
    in distributing other financial aid. As to the latter, the
    district court made only preliminary findings, see Cohen, 809 F.
    ___ _____
    Supp. at 994-97, on the explicit understanding that it would
    revisit compliance vel non with the athletic equivalence standard
    ___ ___
    at trial. Id. at 997.
    ___

    17














    interest and abilities of the members of that
    sex; or
    (3) Where the members of one sex are
    underrepresented among intercollegiate
    athletes, and the institution cannot show a
    continuing practice of program expansion such
    as that cited above, whether it can be
    demonstrated that the interests and abilities
    of the members of that sex have been fully
    and effectively accommodated by the present
    program.

    44 Fed. Reg. at 71,418. The first benchmark furnishes a safe

    harbor for those institutions that have distributed athletic

    opportunities in numbers "substantially proportionate" to the

    gender composition of their student bodies. Thus, a university

    which does not wish to engage in extensive compliance analysis

    may stay on the sunny side of Title IX simply by maintaining

    gender parity between its student body and its athletic lineup.



    The second and third parts of the accommodation test

    recognize that there are circumstances under which, as a

    practical matter, something short of this proportionality is a

    satisfactory proxy for gender balance. For example, so long as a

    university is continually expanding athletic opportunities in an

    ongoing effort to meet the needs of the underrepresented gender,

    and persists in this approach as interest and ability levels in

    its student body and secondary feeder schools rise, benchmark two

    is satisfied and Title IX does not require that the university

    leap to complete gender parity in a single bound. Or, if a

    school has a student body in which one sex is demonstrably less

    interested in athletics, Title IX does not require that the


    18














    school create teams for, or rain money upon, otherwise

    disinterested students; rather, the third benchmark is satisfied

    if the underrepresented sex's discernible interests are fully and

    effectively accommodated.13

    It seems unlikely, even in this day and age, that the

    athletic establishments of many coeducational universities

    reflect the gender balance of their student bodies.14

    Similarly, the recent boom in Title IX suits suggests that, in an

    era of fiscal austerity, few universities are prone to expand

    athletic opportunities. It is not surprising, then, that schools

    more often than not attempt to manage the rigors of Title IX by

    satisfying the interests and abilities of the underrepresented

    gender, that is, by meeting the third benchmark of the

    accommodation test. Yet, this benchmark sets a high standard:

    it demands not merely some accommodation, but full and effective


    ____________________

    13OCR also lists a series of illustrative justifications for
    the disparate treatment of men's and women's athletic teams,
    including (1) sports that require more resources because of the
    nature of the game (e.g., contact sports generally require more
    ____
    equipment), (2) special circumstances, such as an influx of
    first-year players, that may require an extraordinary infusion of
    resources, (3) special operational expenses (e.g., crowd control
    ____
    at a basketball tournament), as long as special operational
    expense needs are met for both genders and (4) affirmative
    measures to remedy past limitations on athletic opportunities for
    one gender. 44 Fed. Reg. at 71,415-16.

    14Success in this regard is, however, attainable. After
    Washington State University was ordered to increase participation
    opportunities for women to a level equivalent with the percentage
    of female undergraduates, see Blair v. Washington State Univ.,
    ___ _____ _______________________
    740 P.2d 1379 (Wash. 1987), the University experienced
    considerable success in meeting court-ordered goals. See Mary
    ___
    Jordan, Only One School Meets Gender Equity Goal, Wash. Post,
    ___________________________________________
    June 21, 1992, at D1.

    19














    accommodation. If there is sufficient interest and ability among

    members of the statistically underrepresented gender, not slaked

    by existing programs, an institution necessarily fails this prong

    of the test.

    Although the full-and-effective-accommodation standard

    is high, it is not absolute. Even when male athletic

    opportunities outnumber female athletic opportunities, and the

    university has not met the first benchmark (substantial

    statistical proportionality) or the second benchmark (continuing

    program expansion) of the accommodation test, the mere fact that

    there are some female students interested in a sport does not

    ipso facto require the school to provide a varsity team in order
    ____ _____

    to comply with the third benchmark. Rather, the institution can

    satisfy the third benchmark by ensuring participatory

    opportunities at the intercollegiate level when, and to the

    extent that, there is "sufficient interest and ability among the

    members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a

    reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that

    team . . . ." 44 Fed. Reg. at 71,418. Staying on top of the

    problem is not sport for the short-winded: the institution must

    remain vigilant, "upgrading the competitive opportunities

    available to the historically disadvantaged sex as warranted by

    developing abilities among the athletes of that sex," id., until
    ___

    the opportunities for, and levels of, competition are equivalent






    20














    by gender.15

    Brown argues that DED's Policy Interpretation,

    construed as we have just outlined, goes so far afield that it

    countervails the enabling legislation. Brown suggests that, to

    the extent students' interests in athletics are disproportionate

    by gender, colleges should be allowed to meet those interests

    incompletely as long as the school's response is in direct

    proportion to the comparative levels of interest. Put bluntly,

    Brown reads the "full" out of the duty to accommodate "fully and

    effectively." It argues instead that an institution

    satisfactorily accommodates female athletes if it allocates

    athletic opportunities to women in accordance with the ratio of
    ________________________________

    interested and able women to interested and able men, regardless
    _____________________________________________________

    of the number of unserved women or the percentage of the student

    body that they comprise.

    Because this is mountainous terrain, an example may

    serve to clarify the distinction between Brown's proposal and our

    understanding of the law. Suppose a university (Oooh U.) has a

    student body consisting of 1,000 men and 1,000 women, a one to

    one ratio. If 500 men and 250 women are able and interested

    ____________________

    15If in the course of adding and upgrading teams, a
    university attains gender parity between its athletic program and
    its student body, it meets the first benchmark of the
    accommodation test. But, Title IX does not require that a school
    pour ever-increasing sums into its athletic establishment. If a
    university prefers to take another route, it can also bring
    itself into compliance with the first benchmark of the
    accommodation test by subtraction and downgrading, that is, by
    reducing opportunities for the overrepresented gender while
    keeping opportunities stable for the underrepresented gender (or
    reducing them to a much lesser extent).

    21














    athletes, the ratio of interested men to interested women is two

    to one. Brown takes the position that both the actual gender

    composition of the student body and whether there is unmet

    interest among the underrepresented gender are irrelevant; in

    order to satisfy the third benchmark, Oooh U. must only provide

    athletic opportunities in line with the two to one interested

    athlete ratio, say, 100 slots for men and 50 slots for women.

    Under this view, the interest of 200 women would be unmet but

    there would be no Title IX violation.

    We think that Brown's perception of the Title IX

    universe is myopic. The fact that the overrepresented gender is

    less than fully accommodated will not, in and of itself, excuse a

    shortfall in the provision of opportunities for the

    underrepresented gender. Rather, the law requires that, in the

    absence of continuing program expansion (benchmark two), schools

    either meet benchmark one by providing athletic opportunities in

    proportion to the gender composition of the student body (in Oooh

    U.'s case, a roughly equal number of slots for men and women, as

    the student body is equally divided), or meet benchmark three by

    fully accommodating interested athletes among the

    underrepresented sex (providing, at Oooh U., 250 slots for

    women).16


    ____________________

    16Of course, if Oooh U. takes the benchmark three route, it
    will also have to provide at least the same number of slots for
    men; but, so long as women remain the underrepresented gender and
    their interests are fully accommodated, the university can
    provide as many (or as few) additional slots for men as it sees
    fit.

    22














    In the final analysis, Brown's view is wrong on two

    scores. It is wrong as a matter of law, for DED's Policy

    Interpretation, which requires full accommodation of the

    underrepresented gender, draws its essence from the statute.

    Whether Brown's concept might be thought more attractive, or

    whether we, if writing on a pristine page, would craft the

    regulation in a manner different than the agency, are not very

    important considerations. Because the agency's rendition stands

    upon a plausible, if not inevitable, reading of Title IX, we are

    obligated to enforce the regulation according to its tenor. See
    ___

    Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.11 (holding that a "court need not
    _______

    conclude that the agency construction was the only one it

    permissibly could have adopted to uphold [it]") (collecting

    cases); Massachusetts v. Secretary of Agric., 984 F.2d 514, 522
    _____________ ____________________

    (1st Cir. 1993) (similar).

    Brown's reading of Title IX is legally flawed for yet

    another reason. It proceeds from the premise that the agency's

    third benchmark countervails Title IX. But, this particular

    imprecation of the third benchmark overlooks the accommodation

    test's general purpose: to determine whether a student has been

    "excluded from participation in, [or] denied the benefits of" an

    athletic program "on the basis of sex . . . ." 20 U.S.C.

    1681(a). While any single element of this tripartite test, in

    isolation, might not achieve the goal set by the statute, the

    test as a whole is reasonably constructed to implement the

    statute. No more is exigible. See Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v.
    ___ _____________________


    23














    Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U.S. 116, 125
    ___________________________________________

    (1985).

    As it happens, Brown's view is also poor policy for, in

    the long run, a rule such as Brown advances would likely make it

    more difficult for colleges to ensure that they have complied

    with Title IX. Given that the survey of interests and abilities

    would begin under circumstances where men's athletic teams have a

    considerable head start, such a rule would almost certainly blunt

    the exhortation that schools should "take into account the

    nationally increasing levels of women's interests and abilities"

    and avoid "disadvantag[ing] members of an underrepresented sex .

    . . ." 44 Fed. Reg. at 71,417.

    Brown's proposal would also aggravate the

    quantification problems that are inevitably bound up with Title

    IX. Student plaintiffs, who carry the burden of proof on this

    issue, as well as universities monitoring self-compliance, would

    be required to assess the level of interest in both the male and

    female student populations and determine comparatively how

    completely the university was serving the interests of each sex.

    By contrast, as we read the accommodation test's third benchmark,

    it requires a relatively simple assessment of whether there is

    unmet need in the underrepresented gender that rises to a level

    sufficient to warrant a new team or the upgrading of an existing

    team. We think the simpler reading is far more serviceable.

    Furthermore, by moving away from OCR's third benchmark,

    which focuses on the levels of interest and ability extant in the


    24














    student body, Brown's theory invites thorny questions as to the

    appropriate survey population, whether from the university,

    typical feeder schools, or the regional community. In that way,

    Brown's proposal would do little more than overcomplicate an

    already complex equation.

    We will not paint the lily. Brown's approach cannot

    withstand scrutiny on either legal or policy grounds. We

    conclude that DED's Policy Interpretation means exactly what it

    says. This plain meaning is a proper, permissible rendition of

    the statute.

    IV. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
    IV. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

    We turn now to a series of case-specific issues,

    starting with Brown's constitutional challenge to the statutory

    scheme.

    A. Equal Protection.
    A. Equal Protection.
    ________________

    Brown asseverates that if the third part of the

    accommodation test is read as OCR wrote it to require full and

    effective accommodation of the underrepresented gender the test

    violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. We think

    not.

    Brown assumes that full and effective accommodation

    disadvantages male athletes.17 While it might well be that

    ____________________

    17In characterizing Title IX as benefitting only women,
    ____
    Brown takes a rather isthmian view of the world at large. After
    all, colleges that have converted from exclusively female
    enrollment to coeducational enrollment face situations inverse to
    Brown's. In such a setting, the men's athletic program may well
    be underdeveloped, or underfunded, or both, while fiscal
    retrenchment offers no reprieve. Under these circumstances,

    25














    more men than women at Brown are currently interested in sports,

    Brown points to no evidence in the record that men are any more

    likely to engage in athletics than women, absent socialization

    and disparate opportunities. In the absence of any proof

    supporting Brown's claim, and in view of congressional and

    administrative urging that women, given the opportunity, will

    naturally participate in athletics in numbers equal to men, we do

    not find that the regulation, when read in the common-sense

    manner that its language suggests, see supra Part III(C)(3),
    ___ _____

    offends the Fifth Amendment.

    What is more, even if we were to assume, for argument's

    sake, that the regulation creates a gender classification slanted

    somewhat in favor of women, we would find no constitutional

    infirmity. It is clear that Congress has broad powers under the

    Fifth Amendment to remedy past discrimination. See, e.g., Metro
    ___ ____ _____

    Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 110 S. Ct. 2997, 3009 (1990) (noting
    __________________ ___

    that Congress need not make specific findings of discrimination

    to grant race-conscious relief); Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S.
    ________ _______

    313, 317 (1977) (upholding social security wage law that

    benefitted women in part because its purpose was "the permissible

    one of redressing our society's longstanding disparate treatment

    of women"). Despite the little legislative history regarding

    discrimination in collegiate athletics that emerged during the

    consideration of Title IX, Congress did hold "extensive hearings


    ____________________

    Title IX would protect the athletic interests of men as the
    underrepresented sex.

    26














    on higher education" when Title IX was pending, in the course of

    which "much testimony was heard with respect to discrimination

    against women in higher education." H.R. Rep. No. 554, 92d

    Cong., 2d Sess. (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2462,
    _________ __

    2511. Athletics featured even more prominently in Congress's

    decision to reverse the Grove City rule. See supra pp. 8-9.
    ___________ ___ _____

    Under these circumstances, we find Brown's plaint unbecoming.

    B. Affirmative Action.
    B. Affirmative Action.
    __________________

    Brown rehashes its equal protection argument and serves

    it up as a nominally different dish, arguing that the district

    court's preliminary injunction constitutes "affirmative action"

    and violates the Equal Protection Clause because the court lacked

    a necessary factual predicate to warrant such a step.18 It is,

    however, established beyond peradventure that, where no contrary

    legislative directive appears, the federal judiciary possesses

    the power to grant any appropriate relief on a cause of action
    ___

    appropriately brought pursuant to a federal statute.19 See
    ___

    Franklin, 112 S. Ct. at 1035 (upholding damage remedy for Title
    ________

    ____________________

    18The "authority" that Brown cites in support of this
    proposition, Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307
    ________________________ _____
    (1978) (Powell, J. concurring), in fact suggests the propriety of
    affirmative relief where there are judicial findings of a
    statutory violation. See id.
    ___ ___

    19On this point, Brown cannot win even if its basic theories
    have merit. If the district court did not engage in the proper
    factfinding, then its order constitutes an abuse of its
    discretion. If, on the other hand, Title IX does not provide for
    equitable relief, the district court will have erred as a matter
    of law in choosing a remedy outside the statutory margins. In
    either event, given that the statute itself is compatible with
    the Equal Protection Clause, Brown cannot prevail on its
    __ ___
    constitutional claim.
    ______________ _____

    27














    IX violation and noting that prospective relief would be

    inadequate); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Hence, this
    ___ ____

    initiative, too, is bootless.

    V. BURDEN OF PROOF
    V. BURDEN OF PROOF

    In addition to its constitutional challenges, Brown

    questions the district court's allocation of the burden of proof.

    It suggests that the analytic model of burden setting and

    shifting commonly accepted in Title VII and ADEA cases, see,
    ___

    e.g., Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
    ____ ________________________________ _______

    254 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-
    _______________________ _____

    05 (1973); Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 823 (1st
    _______ _________________

    Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2965 (1992), is ripe for
    _____ ______

    importation into the precincts patrolled by Title IX. We reject

    the suggestion.

    In our view, there is no need to search for analogies

    where, as in the Title IX milieu, the controlling statutes and

    regulations are clear. To invoke the prophylaxis of Title IX,

    the statute, 20 U.S.C. 1681(b), and the regulations, read

    together, require a Title IX plaintiff to show disparity between

    the gender composition of the institution's student body and its

    athletic program, thereby proving that there is an

    underrepresented gender. Then, the plaintiff must show that a

    second element unmet interest is present. In other words,

    the plaintiff must prove that the underrepresented gender has not

    been "fully and effectively accommodated by the present program."

    44 Fed. Reg. at 71,418. If the plaintiff carries the devoir of


    28














    persuasion on these two elements, she has proven her case unless

    the university shows, as an affirmative defense, "a history and

    continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably

    responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the

    members" of the underrepresented gender. Id.
    ___

    Over and beyond the express dictates of the applicable

    statute and regulations, there is another valid reason for

    eschewing the Title VII paradigm in most Title IX cases. The

    scope and purpose of Title IX, which merely conditions government

    grants to educational institutions, are substantially different

    from those of Title VII, which sets basic employment standards.

    See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 911 F.2d 617, 622
    ___ ________ __________________________

    (11th Cir. 1990) (declining to apply Title VII analysis to Title

    IX litigation), aff'd, 112 S. Ct. 1028 (1992). Title IX, while
    _____

    it applies only to schools that receive federal funds, influences

    almost all aspects of educational management. In contrast, Title

    VII applies to a much wider range of institutions virtually all

    employers but targets only employment-related matters.

    Moreover, Title IX is largely aspirational on the whole,

    affected institutions choose how to accomplish the statutory goal

    whereas Title VII is largely peremptory covered employers

    must adhere to statutorily prescribed standards. Thus, the

    former is a loosely laced buskin, inhospitable to the specialized

    choreography of presumption and production upon which the

    Burdine/McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework depends.
    _______ _________________

    We conclude, therefore, that excepting perhaps in the


    29














    employment discrimination context, see Lipsett v. University of
    ___ _______ _____________

    P.R., 864 F.2d 881, 897 (1st Cir. 1988) (applying Title VII
    ____

    standards in Title IX case, but explicitly limiting the crossover

    to the employment context), the Title VII burden-of-proof rules

    do not apply in Title IX cases.20 Consequently, a Title IX

    plaintiff makes out an athletic discrimination case by proving

    numerical disparity, coupled with unmet interest, each by a fair

    preponderance of the credible evidence, so long as the defendant

    does not rebut the plaintiff's showing by adducing preponderant

    history-and-practice evidence.

    VI. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    VI. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    We come at long last to the cynosure of the appeal.

    This is familiar territory. A district court, faced with a

    motion for preliminary injunction, must assess the request in

    four particular ways, evaluating (1) the movant's probability of

    victory on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm if

    the injunction is refused; (3) the balance of interests as

    between the parties, i.e., whether the harm to the movant if the
    ____

    injunction is withheld outweighs the harm to the nonmovant if the

    injunction is granted; and (4) the public interest. See
    ___

    Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st Cir.
    __________________________ ________

    1991); Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 862 F.2d 890, 892 (1st Cir.
    _____ ________________

    1988); Hypertherm, Inc. v. Precision Prods., Inc., 832 F.2d 697,
    ________________ ______________________


    ____________________

    20But cf. Cook v. Colgate Univ., 802 F. Supp. 737, 743
    ___ ___ ____ _____________
    (N.D.N.Y. 1992) (applying Title VII process to Title IX case at
    urging of parties). Cook is presently on appeal to the Second
    ____
    Circuit. See supra note 4.
    ___ _____

    30














    699 & n.2 (1st Cir. 1987). Of course, a district court's

    conclusions at the preliminary injunction stage are only attempts

    to predict probable outcomes. Thus, "a party losing the battle

    on likelihood of success may nonetheless win the war at a

    succeeding trial . . . ." Guilbert, 934 F.2d at 6.
    ________

    If, in conducting this tamisage, the district court has

    made no clear error of law or fact, we will overturn its

    calibration of the four factors only for a manifest abuse of

    discretion. See Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir.
    ___ ______ _________

    1993); Guilbert, 934 F.2d at 5.
    ________

    Here, the district court found that the quadrat of

    factors favored plaintiffs' position. See Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at
    ___ _____

    985-1001. Brown disagrees with these findings up and down the

    line, but offers developed argumentation only as to three of the

    four components. Because Brown does not explain its challenge to

    the district court's finding that the public interest would be

    disserved by leaving the two women's teams on the sidelines until

    the suit is finally resolved, we ignore its pro forma protest in
    ___ _____

    that respect. Litigants cannot preserve an issue for appeal

    simply by raising a pennant and then moving on to another

    subject. See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30-31 & n.3
    ___ _____________ _____

    (1st Cir. 1992) (reiterating that theories not briefed or argued

    on appeal are waived); Ryan v. Royal Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 731, 734
    ____ ______________

    (1st Cir. 1990) (stating that "issues adverted to on appeal in a

    perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some developed

    argumentation, are deemed to have been abandoned"). Accordingly,


    31














    we limit our review to the three factors briefed and argued.

    A. Likelihood of Success.
    A. Likelihood of Success.
    _____________________

    It is old hat, but still very much in fashion, that a

    movant's likelihood of success at trial is particularly

    influential in the preliminary injunction calculus. See Weaver,
    ___ ______

    984 F.2d at 12; Guilbert, 934 F.2d at 6; Public Serv. Co. v. Town
    ________ ________________ ____

    of West Newbury, 835 F.2d 380, 383 (1st Cir. 1987). In this
    ________________

    case, the district court paid meticulous attention to the

    parties' prospects for success over the long haul. The court

    plainly visualized both the factual intricacies and legal

    complexities that characterize Title IX litigation. It held a

    lengthy adversary hearing and reviewed voluminous written

    submissions. And at journey's end, it correctly focused on the

    three-part accommodation test.

    The court faultlessly dispatched the first two elements

    of the test. With respect to the comparison between Brown's

    athletic agenda and student body, we adopt the lower court's

    record-rooted finding that the University did not meet or even

    closely approach the "substantial proportionality" threshold

    because it offered too few varsity opportunities for women. See
    ___

    Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 991. Cognizant, perhaps, that the raw
    _____

    numbers tell an unambiguous tale, Brown does not challenge the

    inviolability of this finding.

    As to the test's second part, the court below found

    that, although Brown could point to "impressive growth" in its

    women's athletic program in the 1970s, the school had not


    32














    continued filling the gap during the next two decades. Id. On
    ___

    this basis, the court concluded that Brown had not met the

    benchmark. See id. Brown asserts that the district court erred
    ___ ___

    by not crediting it sufficiently for its dramatic expansion of

    women's sports in the 1970s, and we are not entirely

    unsympathetic to this plea. In the last analysis, however, this

    was a judgment call and the trial court's judgment was not

    unreasonable. While a university deserves appreciable applause

    for supercharging a low-voltage athletic program in one burst

    rather than powering it up over a longer period, such an

    energization, once undertaken, does not forever hold the

    institution harmless. Here, Brown labored for six years to weave

    a broad array of new activities into the fabric of its palestrian

    offerings. The district court apparently believed, however, that

    Brown then rested on its laurels for at least twice that long.

    The very length of this hiatus suggests something far short of a

    continuing practice of program expansion. And, moreover, a
    __________

    university must design expansion in whatever form and at whatever

    pace to respond to the flux and reflux of unserved interests.

    The court below found that Brown failed in this task. See id.
    ___ ___

    The issue of responsiveness is fact-intensive and in most

    instances, as here, its resolution will be within the trier's

    province. We find no error, therefore, in the district court's

    resolution of the second aspect of the accommodation test.

    The third benchmark presents a more problematic

    scenario. The district court incorrectly held that Brown bore


    33














    the burden of showing that it had fully and effectively

    accommodated the interests and abilities of its women athletes.

    See id. at 997. Section 1681(b) requires that the plaintiffs,
    ___ ___

    rather than the University, prove a shortfall in the full and

    effective accommodation of interested female athletes by showing,

    initially, both numerical disparity and unmet interest. See
    ___

    supra Part V. Nonetheless, we do not think that the court's
    _____

    bevue is fatal. Even when a trial court has misconstrued the

    law, an appellate tribunal may avoid remanding if the record is

    sufficiently developed and the facts necessary to shape the

    proper legal matrix are sufficiently clear. See, e.g., Societe
    ___ ____ _______

    Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633,
    _________________________ ___________________

    642 (1st Cir. 1992) (coupling district court's factual findings

    with correct rule of law); United States v. Mora, 821 F.2d 860,
    _____________ ____

    869 (1st Cir. 1987) (same); see also Cameron v. Tomes, ___ F.2d
    ___ ____ _______ _____

    ___, ___ (1st Cir. 1993) [No. 92-1343, slip op. at 14-15] (using

    findings of fact made in the framework of an unacceptable legal

    analysis to affirm injunctive relief on a different legal

    theory).

    We find this to be a particularly auspicious setting in

    which to employ such a device. Although the full and effective

    accommodation of athletic interests is likely to be a complicated

    issue where allegedly underrepresented plaintiffs sue to force a

    university to create a neoteric team or upgrade the status of a

    club team, see, e.g., Cook, 802 F. Supp. at 737, there is
    ___ ____ ____

    unlikely to be any comparably turbid question as to interest and


    34














    ability where, as here, plaintiffs are seeking merely to

    forestall the interment of healthy varsity teams.

    In this instance, the district court's subsidiary

    findings of fact render it beyond cavil that the plaintiffs

    carried their burden of proof. The court found, for example,

    that there was "great interest and talent" amongst Brown's female

    undergraduates which, following the cuts, would go unserved.

    Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 992. Of particular moment, the court also
    _____

    found the interest and talent on campus ample to support women's

    varsity volleyball and gymnastics teams, see id. a finding that
    ___ ___

    is hardly surprising in view of the teams' robust health before

    the budget-cutters arrived on the scene. The court proceeded to

    note that, while club teams can be equivalent to intercollegiate

    teams when they regularly participate in varsity competition, see
    ___

    44 Fed. Reg. at 71,413 n.1, the teams that Brown downgraded would

    not regularly be competing against varsity teams and would suffer

    a diminution of status in a wide range of other significant

    respects. See Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 992-93.
    ___ _____

    The potency of this evidence is an effective antidote

    to the district court's partial misapplication of the burden of

    proof. Because the record contains nothing that would allow a

    trier to find that Brown's athletic agenda reflects the makeup of

    its student body or that the plaintiff class is so poorly

    populated as to warrant a reduction in women's sports,21 the

    ____________________

    21It bears mentioning in this regard that Judge Pettine
    heard, and apparently credited, evidence indicating that there
    were other women's club teams sufficiently accomplished and

    35














    court's error was harmless. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs met

    their challenge on parts one and three of the accommodation test.

    This conclusion, in partnership with the district court's

    supportable finding that Brown did not satisfactorily demonstrate

    a continuing expansion of its women's athletic lineup, strikes

    the gold. The court's prediction of plaintiffs' probable success

    was, therefore, adequately grounded.

    B. Irreparable Injury.
    B. Irreparable Injury.
    __________________

    The next area of inquiry is irreparable harm. The

    district court heard from a variety of athletic administration

    experts. The court concluded that, absent judicial intervention,

    the plaintiffs would suffer irremediable injury in at least three

    respects: competitive posture, recruitment, and loss of

    coaching. As club teams, the district court thought women's

    volleyball and gymnastics would increasingly become less

    competitive, have fewer players, be unable to schedule varsity

    teams from other schools, become unattractive to potential stars

    making college choices, and suffer stagnation in the growth of

    individual talent due to the absence of coaching.22 See Cohen,
    ___ _____

    809 F. Supp. at 992-93. Certainly, these harms exist to some

    degree. In highly nuanced cases involving a melange of competing

    ____________________

    populated to flourish as varsity squads. Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at
    _____
    992.

    22Brown does not retain coaches for its club teams and few
    of the teams have the independent financial wherewithal to hire
    coaches. Here, the district court specifically found that if the
    gymnastics team was downgraded to club status, it would likely
    lose its paid coach when her contract expired in June of 1993.
    Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 992.
    _____

    36














    considerations, the aggregate injury, and whether or not it is

    irreparable, come primarily within the trial court's ken. See K-
    ___ __

    Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907, 915 (1st Cir.
    __________ _____________________

    1989) (acknowledging that "[d]istrict courts have broad

    discretion to evaluate the irreparability of alleged harm")

    (citation omitted). So it is here. Although the types of harms

    the court catalogued might not all rise to the same level of

    seriousness, the overall record supports, even though it does not

    compel, the court's assessment of their cumulative severity.

    Given, especially, the lack of any other concinnous remedy

    pendente lite, we will not second-guess the district court's
    ________ ____

    finding of irreparable injury.

    C. The Balance of Harms.
    C. The Balance of Harms.
    ____________________

    Finally, the district court found that the competing

    equities weighed in favor of granting the injunction. After

    hearing testimony from Brown's Financial Vice-President and its

    Associate Athletic Director, the district court concluded that

    the cost of the interim injunction would be relatively slight;

    and that, in view of discretionary funds already contained in the

    Athletic Department budget and a presidential "contingency fund,"

    Brown possessed the wherewithal to defray the costs without undue

    hardship. See Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 1000-01. By contrast, the
    ___ _____

    court noted the volleyball and gymnastics programs' continuing

    deterioration in the aftermath of the demotion. See id. at 992-
    ___ ___

    93. On balance, the court determined that the financial burden

    on Brown was tolerable, and, in any event, was overbalanced by


    37














    the potential harm to the plaintiff class if the court took no

    action.

    Brown contests the results of this balancing on the

    premise that the district court wrongly discounted the testimony

    of one of its witnesses and did not adequately consider the

    possibility that false hopes might be raised by a preliminary

    injunction. It is, however, axiomatic that a district court,

    sitting without a jury, may selectively discount testimony as it

    weighs conflicting viewpoints and adjudicates the facts. See
    ___

    Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 500
    __________ ______________________________

    (1984); Anthony v. Sundlun, 952 F.2d 603, 606 (1st Cir. 1991).
    _______ _______

    This is a trial court's prerogative and, indeed, its duty.

    It is similarly fundamental that a preliminary

    injunction, by its very nature, is sometimes ephemeral. Hence,

    the risk that some observers might read into a temporary

    restrainer more than it eventually proves to mean is endemic to

    the equitable device and cannot tip the scales against its use in

    any particular circumstance. It defies elemental logic to say

    that parties who the court has determined will probably succeed

    at trial should be denied the interim relief to which they are

    entitled because their ultimate victory is less than absolutely

    certain.

    In fine, the district court did not overspill its

    discretion either in taking Brown's self-interested description

    of its financial plight with a grain of salt or in limiting the

    role that raising false hopes might play in the equitable


    38














    calculus.

    D. Summing Up.
    D. Summing Up.
    __________

    We summarize succinctly, beginning with the probability

    of plaintiffs' success. In an era where the practices of higher

    education must adjust to stunted revenues, careening costs, and

    changing demographics, colleges might well be obliged to curb

    spending on programs, like athletics, that do not lie at the

    epicenter of their institutional mission. Title IX does not

    purport to override financial necessity. Yet, the pruning of

    athletic budgets cannot take place solely in comptrollers'

    offices, isolated from the legislative and regulatory imperatives

    that Title IX imposes.

    This case aptly illustrates the point. Brown earnestly

    professes that it has done no more than slash women's and men's

    athletics by approximately the same degree, and, indeed, the raw

    numbers lend partial credence to that characterization.23 But,

    Brown's claim overlooks the shortcomings that plagued its program

    before it took blade in hand. If a school, like Brown, eschews

    the first two benchmarks of the accommodation test, electing to

    stray from substantial proportionality and failing to march

    uninterruptedly in the direction of equal athletic opportunity,

    it must comply with the third benchmark. To do so, the school

    ____________________

    23We note, however, that while the cuts proposed by Brown
    eliminate a roughly equal number of athletic opportunities for
    women as for men, those cuts subtract roughly four times more
    money from the budget for female pancratiasts than from the
    budget for their male counterparts. See supra pp. 4-5. And, as
    ___ _____
    a noted playwright once observed, "where there is no money, there
    is no change of any kind." Moss Hart, Act One (1959).
    _______

    39














    must fully and effectively accommodate the underrepresented

    gender's interests and abilities, even if that requires it to

    give the underrepresented gender (in this case, women) what

    amounts to a larger slice of a shrinking athletic-opportunity

    pie.

    The record reveals that the court below paid heed to

    these realities. It properly recognized that even balanced use

    of the budget-paring knife runs afoul of Title IX where, as here,

    the fruits of a university's athletic program remain ill-

    distributed after the trimming takes place. Because the district

    court understood this principle, and because its findings of fact

    as to the case's probable outcome are based on substantial

    evidence, the court's determination that plaintiffs are likely to

    succeed on the merits is inexpugnable.

    The district court displayed similar dexterity in

    touching the other three bases en route to a grant of injunctive

    relief: irreparability of injury, the relative weight of

    potential harms, and impact on the public interest. The court

    found that the harm to the plaintiff class was irremediable,

    absent prompt injunctive relief; that the balance of harms

    favored such relief; and that the overriding public interest lay

    in the firm enforcement of Title IX. In each of these areas, as

    in the likelihood-of-success arena, the court made serial

    findings that, taken at face value, amply justify injunctive

    relief. Because these findings derive adequate support from the

    record, the court's decree must stand as long as the specific


    40














    relief the court ordered was appropriate. It is to this issue

    that we now turn.

    VII. REMEDIATION
    VII. REMEDIATION

    After applying the preliminary injunction standard, the

    district court ordered relief pendente lite, temporarily
    ________ ____

    reinstating the women's volleyball and gymnastics teams. Brown

    argues that such specific relief is inappropriate because it

    intrudes on Brown's discretion. The point has some cogency. We

    are a society that cherishes academic freedom and recognizes that

    universities deserve great leeway in their operations. See,
    ___

    e.g., Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791, 795 (1st
    ____ _____ _________________________

    Cir. 1992), petition for cert. filed (Feb. 3, 1993); Lamphere v.
    ________ ___ _____ _____ ________

    Brown Univ., 875 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1989). In addition,
    ___________

    Title IX does not require institutions to fund any particular

    number or type of athletic opportunities only that they provide

    those opportunities in a nondiscriminatory fashion if they wish

    to receive federal funds.

    Nonetheless, the district court has broad discretionary

    power to take provisional steps restoring the status quo pending

    the conclusion of a trial. See Ricci v. Okin, 978 F.2d 764, 767
    ___ _____ ____

    (1st Cir. 1992); Guilbert, 934 F.2d at 7 & n.3. Considering the
    ________

    district court's proper estimation and deft application of the

    preliminary injunction standard, see supra Part VI, we think that
    ___ _____

    requiring Brown to maintain the women's volleyball and gymnastics

    teams in varsity status for the time being is a remedial choice

    within the district court's discretion. That is not to say,


    41














    however, that the same remedy will be suitable at trial's end if

    the Title IX charges prove out against Brown. The district court

    has noted, we believe appropriately, that if it ultimately finds

    Brown's athletic program to violate Title IX, it will initially

    require the University to propose a compliance plan rather than

    mandate the creation or deletion of particular athletic teams.

    Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 1001. Although the district court has the
    _____

    power to order specific relief if the institution wishes to

    continue receiving federal funds, see Franklin, 112 S. Ct. at
    ___ ________

    1035, the many routes to Title IX compliance make specific relief

    most useful in situations where the institution, after a judicial

    determination of noncompliance, demonstrates an unwillingness or

    inability to exercise its discretion in a way that brings it into

    compliance with Title IX.

    VIII. CONCLUSION
    VIII. CONCLUSION

    We need go no further. This litigation presents an

    array of complicated and important issues at a crossroads of the

    law that few courts have explored. The beacon by which we must

    steer is Congress's unmistakably clear mandate that educational

    institutions not use federal monies to perpetuate gender-based

    discrimination. At the same time, we must remain sensitive to

    the fact that suits of this genre implicate the discretion of

    universities to pursue their missions free from governmental

    interference and, in the bargain, to deploy increasingly scarce

    resources in the most advantageous way. These considerations,

    each of which is in service to desirable ends, are necessarily in


    42














    tension in Title IX cases. Thus, there are unlikely to be ideal

    solutions to all the vexing problems that might potentially

    arise.

    This appeal exemplifies many of the difficulties

    inherent in Title IX litigation. We do not presume to say that

    the district court's interim solution is perfect, but it is fair

    and it is lawful. On the record compiled to date, the

    preliminary injunction requiring Brown to reinstate its women's

    volleyball and gymnastics teams for the time being came well

    within the encincture of judicial discretion. We will not

    meddle.

    The preliminary injunction is affirmed, the temporary
    The preliminary injunction is affirmed, the temporary
    _______________________________________________________

    stay is dissolved, and the cause is remanded to the district
    stay is dissolved, and the cause is remanded to the district
    _________________________________________________________________

    court for further proceedings. Costs to appellees.
    court for further proceedings. Costs to appellees.
    _____________________________ __________________


























    43







Document Info

Docket Number: 92-2483

Filed Date: 4/16/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015

Authorities (32)

Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Town of West ... , 835 F.2d 380 ( 1987 )

United States v. Price , 86 S. Ct. 1152 ( 1966 )

Christine Franklin v. The Gwinnett County Public Schools, a ... , 911 F.2d 617 ( 1990 )

Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Paul E. Guilbert , 934 F.2d 4 ( 1991 )

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , 98 S. Ct. 2733 ( 1978 )

Gardebring v. Jenkins , 108 S. Ct. 1306 ( 1988 )

United States v. Frances Slade , 980 F.2d 27 ( 1992 )

Steven Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine , 976 F.2d 791 ( 1992 )

Annabelle Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico , 864 F.2d 881 ( 1988 )

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 93 S. Ct. 1817 ( 1973 )

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 101 S. Ct. 1089 ( 1981 )

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools , 112 S. Ct. 1028 ( 1992 )

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ... , 104 S. Ct. 2778 ( 1984 )

Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Natural Resources Defense ... , 105 S. Ct. 1102 ( 1985 )

William Alexander Alvarez-Flores v. Immigration and ... , 909 F.2d 1 ( 1990 )

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Welfare ... , 984 F.2d 514 ( 1993 )

Maury A. Ryan, D/B/A Ryan, Klimek, Ryan Partnership v. ... , 916 F.2d 731 ( 1990 )

Ralph S. Weaver, Etc. v. Charles Henderson, Etc. , 984 F.2d 11 ( 1993 )

united-states-v-hector-mora-united-states-of-america-v-franklin , 821 F.2d 860 ( 1987 )

Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc. , 982 F.2d 633 ( 1992 )

View All Authorities »