Cohen v. Brown University
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
991 F.2d 888 (1993)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
By 1991, Brown University (defendant) had created 15 women’s athletic teams and 16 men’s teams. Largely because of Brown’s football team, the total number of participants on all teams was 328 women, comprising 37 percent of the total number of athletic positions, and 566 men, making up 63 percent of the total number of athletic positions. Thereafter, Brown announced that it was going to cut four sports teams in order to reduce costs. The four teams were women’s volleyball and gymnastics and men’s water polo and golf. While more money was effectively cut from the women’s programs than the men’s programs, the relative number of team positions remained the same. Women comprised 48 percent of Brown’s total student population. Brown told student-athletes of the cut programs that they could continue to participate in their sports as “intercollegiate clubs,” but would not receive financial assistance from the university. Amy Cohen (plaintiff), a member of the women’s gymnastics team, and several other student-athletes filed suit against Brown alleging that the institution violated Title IX. The district court grated Cohen a preliminary injunction prohibiting Brown from eliminating the women’s gymnastics and volleyball programs. Brown appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Selya, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.