Search Articles
CINCINNATI (CN) — A Sixth Circuit panel found Tuesday that the University of Kentucky adequately gauged interest and ability under federal law before it rejected attempts to form new female varsity sports teams.
Although women make up a slightly larger percentage of the student body when compared to the school’s varsity athletes, there are not enough Division I level equestrian, lacrosse and field hockey players to require teams under Title IX, the appeals court determined.
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, upheld a federal judge’s ruling in the panel’s Tuesday opinion, and emphasized Title IX does not require “proportional representation of students on sports teams.”
A class of female student-athletes sued the Southeastern Conference university in 2019, claiming it failed to adequately interpret the results of a school-wide survey about interest in the sports.
A bench trial was overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Karen Caldwell, another George W. Bush appointee, who ultimately ruled in the university’s favor.
Sutton and the other judges on the Sixth Circuit panel refused to disturb Caldwell’s findings following arguments in December.
The panel found lead plaintiffs Elizabeth Niblock and Ala Hassan failed to satisfy the third prong of a set of a rules established in 1979 to interpret compliance with Title IX, which states a university must provide athletic programs that “fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests and abilities of both sexes.”
“Start with the trial testimony from student athletes,” Sutton wrote in his opinion. “It showed that one female student wanted to and could compete in equestrian and two in lacrosse. That by itself falls well short of the numbers to field each team.”
“Move to another type of probative evidence — the status and nature of the club teams in each sport and whether the members of those teams showed the requisite interest and talent to create a Division I varsity sport. The conditions of the existing equestrian, field hockey, and lacrosse club teams do not show that the university could ‘sustain a viable team’ for varsity competitions in these women’s sports,” he added.
Sutton then cited trial testimony from each of the club team coaches, which included comments describing the commitment level to lacrosse as “very lackadaisical,” the organization of the field hockey team as poor and the lack of high-level training for equestrian riders as a legitimate safety concern.
The female students had argued the university failed to follow up properly on a survey they claimed indicated a high level of interest for the sports, but the appellate panel rejected the idea.
Sutton parsed the numbers in the survey, and pointed out that while 244 students expressed interest in an equestrian team, only 11 passed all of the school’s athletic requirements, while only 9 of those left contact information on their surveys.
He emphasized the results of an anonymous survey cannot overcome what he called “glaring” evidentiary issues, most notable of which is the lack of objective evidence that a suitable number of students can compete at the level required for a Division I team.
Sutton acknowledged the importance of equal athletic opportunities, but ultimately said “Title IX does not require schools to manufacture interest in a team or field teams unable to compete at a meaningful level. The claimants have not shown that such an unmet demand exists, at least not on this record. It is not the role of federal courts to make a university create varsity teams when the evidence fails to show that its student body currently can fill their ranks.”
Attorney Lori Bullock of Bullock Law PLLC in Des Moines, Iowa, who represented the students during the case, said in a statement, “Plaintiffs are disappointed in the Court’s holding and are exploring next steps in the appellate process.”
The University of Kentucky did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
U.S. Circuit Judges Eric Murphy, a Donald Trump appointee, and Rachel Bloomekatz, a Joe Biden appointee, joined in Sutton’s opinion.
Follow @kkoeninger44Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.