Neal v. Board of Trustees of the California State Universities
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
198 F.3d 763 (1999)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) (defendant) was a large public university with a female-to-male student population of approximately 64 percent to 36 percent. However, male students made up approximately 61 percent of CSUB’s athletic rosters. Due to this imbalance, CSUB was sued by the National Organization for Women for violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. CSUB settled the case by agreeing to a consent decree that required CSUB to have a proportion of female athletes within five percentage points of the total proportion of female students. In order to comply with the consent decree, CSUB adopted squad-size targets that encouraged the expansion of female teams and limited the size of men’s teams. The men’s wrestling team was capped at 27 for the 1995-96 academic year. This cap was protested by the coach and by the team captain, Stephen Neal (plaintiff). In the 1996-97 academic year, the men’s wrestling team was capped at 25 members. In January 1997, Neal and the wrestling team sued CSUB, alleging violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against CSUB, and CSUB appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.
