Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Biediger v. Quinnipiac University

728 F. Supp. 2d 62 (2010)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Biediger v. Quinnipiac University

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

728 F. Supp. 2d 62 (2010)

Facts

Quinnipiac University (Quinnipiac) (defendant) was a private university and member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Quinnipiac had seven men’s and 12 women’s varsity athletic teams. Quinnipiac announced its intention to cut three of its sports teams, including women’s volleyball, which had a roster of 12 female players, and create a new competitive cheerleading team with a roster of at least 30 female players. For purposes of compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), the university counted athletes based on rostered players on the first day of competitions, which resulted in 166 male and 274 female athletes, or 62.27 percent female athletes. There were 2,168 male and 3,518 female enrolled students, meaning 61.87 percent of students were female. According to the university, then, it complied with Title IX because it offered substantially proportional athletic-participation opportunities for women and men. Five women’s-varsity-volleyball players (the players) (plaintiffs) sued Quinnipiac alleging that eliminating the women’s volleyball team violated Title IX. The players claimed that genuine athletic-participation opportunities were not substantially proportional for women and men for several reasons, including that competitive cheerleading was not a varsity sport, the university’s count of female athletes was intentionally manipulated to be too high, and the count of male athletes was too low. The court held a trial, hearing extensive expert- and lay-witness testimony on the sports programs, roster preparation, enrollment data, competitive cheerleading, and Quinnipiac’s plans.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Underhill, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership