Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

1
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

• Provides for the unlawful employment practices
  for an employer to
• Fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
  individual, or otherwise discriminate against any
  individual with respect to compensation, terms,
  conditions, or privileges of employment, because
  of such individuals race, color, religion, sex,
  or national origin or

2
Proof

• To establish discrimination the plaintiff must
  prove
• The defendant was subject to the provisions of
  the statute
• Plaintiff is entitled to protection
• Plaintiff has not been provided benefits of the
  statute
• If the plaintiff can prove these conditions the
  defendant must prove evidence of legitimate
  nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct

3
Classes Protected Under Title VII

• Race
• Color
• National Origin
• Sex
• Religion

4
Cross v. Board of Education of Dollarway,
Arkansas School District

• Plaintiff, a black high school football coach in
  an all black high school in a segregated school
  district was demoted to assistant coach when his
  high school became the junior high.
• Was passed over twice while less qualified white
  coaches were promoted
• The second time the superintendent of the school
  suggested to the school board that they consider
  searching outside of the school district for a
  white coach.

5
Cross v. Board of Education of Dollarway,
Arkansas School District

• The superintendent was of the opinion that white
  players would not play for a black coach and that
  the community was not ready for a black head
  coach
• Court found that the school boards refusal to
  even consider the plaintiffs application was a
  clear evidence of disparate treatment on the
  basis of race

6
Title IX

• No person in the United States shall, on the
  basis of sex, be excluded from participation in,
  be denied the benefits of, or be subject to
  discrimination under any educational programs or
  activity receiving federal financial assistance.
• From the preamble to Title IX of the Education
  Amendments of 1972

7
Title IX

• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
  bolsters this national agenda and prohibits sex
  discrimination in federally assisted education
  programs.

8
Title IX

• In 1971, 18 percent of female high school
  graduates were completing at least four years of
  college compared to 26 percent of their male
  peers. Today, that education gap no longer
  exists.

9
Who Does It Affect?

• Title IX prohibits institutions that receive
  federal funding from practicing gender
  discrimination in educational programs or
  activities.
• Because almost all schools receive federal funds,
  Title IX applies to nearly everyone.

10
Participation Rates

• H.S Varsity 1972 2001
• Female 294,015 2.8 million
• Male 3.7 million 3.9 million
• College Varsity 1972 2001
• Female 29,977 150,916
• Male 170,384 208,866

11
Title IX

• Before the passage of Title IX, athletic
  scholarships for college women were rare, no
  matter how great their talent.
• After winning two gold medals in the 1964
  Olympics, swimmer Donna de Varona could not
  obtain a college swimming scholarship for women,
  they did not exist.

12
Rules on Hold

• 1984 Supreme Court rules in Grove City v. Bell
  that Title IX does not apply to programs that do
  not directly receive federal aid, essentially
  ending its application to athletics.

13
Active Judicial Enforcement

• 1988 Overriding a veto by President Reagan,
  Congress passes the Civil Rights Restoration Act,
  which mandates that civil rights law applies to
  all operations of any school that gets federal
  funds. This effectively supercedes Grove City.

14
Active Judicial Enforcement

• 1992 Supreme Court allows monetary damages to be
  awarded in Title IX cases in Franklin v. Gwinnett
  County. This opens the door to more suits by
  female athletes. Such suits are filed against
  Auburn, Colorado State and Brown.
• 1999 Cal State-Bakersfield loses a claim that
  capping the number of athletes on men's teams is
  reverse discrimination

15
It Only Pertains to CollegeNO

• According to the U.S. Department of Educations
  Office of Civil Rights (OCR), there were 119
  complaints filed against high schools regarding
  Title IX compared to 28 colleges or universities
  in 2001

16
Collegiate Athletic Jobs for Women

• Athletic Director 17
• SID 12
• Athletic Trainers 28
• Head coach (women) 44
• Head coach (men) 2
• Acosta Carpenter (2003)

17
Frequently Asked Questions About Title IX

• Who does it apply to?
• Title IX applies to all educational
  institutions, public and private, who receive
  federal funds. Almost all private and public
  colleges and universities must abide by title IX
  regulations because they receive funding through
  federal financial aid programs used by their
  students
• NCAA Online

18
The Program Areas

• Equipment and Supplies
• Coaching
• Recruitment
• Locker Rooms and Competition Facilities
• Scheduling of Games and Practice Times
• Travel and Per Diem Allowance
• Housing and Dining Services
• Publicity
• Medical and Training Services
• Tutoring, Support Services

19
3 Prongs of Title IX

• Substantial Proportionality
• Compares the the percentage of female
  undergraduates in the student population to eh
  percentage of female athletes in the athletic
  department
• At the University of New Mexico the student
  population is 57 while 33 of the athletes are
  female.

20
3 Prongs of Title IX

• History and Continuing Practice
• Does the institution have documented proof that
  they have expanded opportunities for women in
  sports?
• Boucher v. Syracuse University (1999)

21
3 Prongs of Title IX

• Full and Effective Accommodation
• Is the institution accommodating the athletic
  interests and abilities of female students.
• Do they offer a majority (every?) sports offered
  in the high school level of the state?
• Do they offer the majority (every?) of sports
  sponsored by the conference?
• Has there been a history of interest not
  accommodated?

22
4 WAYS TO BALANCE TITLE IX CONCERNS

• Eliminate mens programs add womens programs
• Eliminate mens programs maintain womens
  programs
• Maintain mens programs add womens programs
• Maintain mens programs at minimal participation
  level increase the number of participants on
  womens teams

23
Does Title IX Apply Only to Athletics

• The law applies to every single aspect of
  education including course offerings, counseling,
  counseling materials, financial assistance,
  student health and insurance benefits, physical
  education and athletics, educational programs and
  activities, and employment.

24
Does Title IX Pertain Only to Girls and Women?

• Title IX applies to everyone.
• The law requires educational institutions to
  maintain policies, practices, and programs that
  do not discriminate against anyone on the basis
  of gender.

25
What If a Male Wants to Tryout for a Female
Sponsored Sport

• Title IX requires that the member of the
  underrepresented gender be allowed to tryout for
  the sport.
• If that person qualifies the they must be allowed
  to be part of the team

26
Wont Too Many Males Dominate Female Sports?

• If more than 1 male expresses the desire to
  compete on a team that is not sponsored by the
  mens athletic department the following should
  take place
• Identify the amount of interest
• Form a club if interest allows
• Develop practice time for the club
• Find someone to coach the club
• Find competitions for the club
• Determine which, if any, conferences sponsor the
  sport for men
• Join the conference if interest seems to continue

27
Who is Responsible for Enforcing Title IX?

• Institutions are responsible for complying with
  the federal laws.
• The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S.
  Department of Education is responsible for
  enforcing Title IX.
• The OCR developed the Intercollegiate Athletics
  Policy Interpretation in 1979 and remains in
  effect today.

28
Does Title IX Require Equal Dollars be Spent?

• No.
• The only provisions are that the same dollars be
  spent proportional to participation is
  scholarships.
• Otherwise, male and female student-athletes must
  receive equitable treatment and benefits.

29
Does Title IX apply to booster clubs and other
types of (similar) support for athletic teams?

• Yes. If the school permits an individual or group
  to donate funds for the benefit of a specific
  gender or sport, it must also make sure that
  benefits and services are equivalent for both
  sexes.

30
Why Does Title IX Not Require the Same Amount be
Spent?

• The Javits Amendment state that legitimate and
  justifiable discrepancies for nongender related
  differences in sports could be taken into
  account.
• For example, a male football player needs
  protective equipment such as pads and helmet. A
  female soccer player need shin guards. Title IX
  allows for this discrepancy as long as the
  quality of equipment is the same. However, a
  female hockey player must receive the same
  protective equipment as her male counterpart.

31
Does Title IX Require Identical Programs for
Males and Female?

• No. Title IX requires that the programs meet the
  interests and abilities of each gender. One team
  is not compared to the same team in each sport.
  The OCR examines the total program afforded to
  male student-athletes and whether the total
  program meets the standards of equal treatment.

32
Does Title IX Decrease the Opportunities for Male
Athletes?

• Title IX does not require reduction of male
  opportunities. Rather it is designed to create
  the same opportunities for women to participate.
• 2/3 of the schools that added womens sports to
  comply with Title IX did not eliminate mens
  programs from 1972-2001

33
Discontinued Teams

• Mens Teams Discontinued
• Wrestling 171
• Tennis 84
• Gymnastics 56
• Womens Teams Discontinued
• Gymnastics 100
• Fencing 31
• Field Hockey 28
• GAO Report Four Year Colleges Experiences Adding
  and Discontinuing Teams, 2001

34
Added Teams

• Mens Teams Added
• Soccer 135
• Baseball 85
• Basketball 82
• Womens Teams Added
• Track 243
• Lacrosse 108
• Swimming 101
• GAO Report Four Year Colleges Experiences Adding
  and Discontinuing Teams, 2001

35
Title IX Cases
36
Grove City v. Bell

• Removed jurisdiction from college-level athletics
  and physical education programs from 1984-1988

37
Franklin v. Gwinnett

• Landmark Supreme Court case changed the
  enforcement strategies for Title IX because of
  its decision concerning compensatory and punitive
  damages.
• Thus, a private party could collect monetary
  damages.

38
Cook v. Colgate University

• Members of the womens ice hockey club challenged
  Colgates decision to reject its application to
  varsity status 4 times.
• The court found Colgate in violation of Title IX
  and ordered the school to update womens hockey
  to a varsity sport.

39
Boucher v. Syracuse University

• Plaintiffs alleged that Syracuse violated Title
  IX by
• Discriminating against proper allocation of
  participation opportunities.
• Provided unequal benefits and scholarship funding
  to varsity female athletes.

40
Boucher v. Syracuse University

• Found that
• The school was successful in meeting the history
  and continuing practice of expanding
  opportunities for women.
• Marked the first time the second prong was
  successfully proven by an institution

41
Neal v. Board of Trustees of California State
University

• At issue was the legality of roster size limits
  as a method of meeting Title IX proportionality.
• In an overruling of a district court, the Ninth
  Court of Appeals held that Title IX does not bar
  a university from reducing the proportion of
  roster spots assigned to a team.

42
Mercer v. Duke University

• Court held that when a university permits members
  of the opposite sex to try out for single sex
  contact sports teams, Title IX will protect the
  athlete against discriminatory treatment.

43
Mercer v. Duke University

• Jury recently found that Mercer, the plaintiff
  place kicker, had been discriminated against when
  she was cut for the Duke University football
  team.
• Implication may be that a university may deny
  participation in contact sport without facing
  liability.

44
Cohen v. Brown University

• Brown University downgraded 2 womens sports
  (volleyball gymnastics) and 2 mens sports
  (golf water polo).
• Student body 52 male, 48
• Participation 63 male, 37 female

45
Cohen v. Brown University

• Court ruled that Brown University failed to
  accommodate the interests and abilities of female
  students and violated Title IX.
• Court gave Brown 120 days to comply with Title IX.

46
Cohen v. Brown University

• Court found the NCAA squad lists to be the most
  accurate representation of varsity participation.
• Brown argued that there is no consistent measure
  of actual participation rates because team sizes
  change throughout the seasons due to injuries,
  cuts, quits.
• Court stated that counting participants at the
  end of the last complete season addresses the
  issue

47
Cohen v. Brown University

• Court found that Brown had violated each of the 3
  prongs of Title IX in that they did not
• Meet the substantially proportionate standard due
  to the 11 gap between opportunities for male and
  female athletes and their respective student
  enrollment

48
Cohen v. Brown University

• Brown had not engaged in the continued expansion
  of womens sports previously (2nd prong)
• The court ruled that full and effective
  accommodation means that an institution must
  fully and effectively accommodate the interests
  of women even if mens interests are not fully
  accommodated, unless it can satisfy either of the
  first 2 prongs.

49
Challenges to Decisions to Eliminate Mens
Programs

• Kelley v. Board of Trustees of the University of
  Illinois.
• Court ruled that title IX was not violated when
  the U of I eliminated mens swimming but not
  womens swimming.
• Reasons for the courts ruling were
• Interests and abilities were presumptively met
  when substantiality exists
• Mens participation in athletics was 77 while
  the enrollment of student body males equaled 56.

50
Challenges to Decisions to Eliminate Mens
Programs

• Gonyo v. Drake
• Wrestlers contended that dropping the program
  constituted gender discrimination in Violation of
  Title IX and that Drake was not accommodating
  its male interests and abilities.

51
Gonyo v. Drake

• Court rejected the argument finding
• That although males were in the minority in the
  student body, 75 of the participants in
  athletics were male and 75 of the money was
  allocated to the mens budget.
• There were 7 mens teams and 5 womens teams.
• Moreover, the relief sought by the wrestlers
  would result in even more opportunities offered
  to men that already had a disproportionate number
  of participation opportunities.