The TRO ruling (Ruling) keeps in place the team’s financial support, coaching contracts, and access to facilities, among other program elements, which were slated to end this season.
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (PRWEB) May 28, 2021
After a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, Judge Underhill found “that there is a substantial likelihood of success on [the Plaintiffs’] Title IX claim.” He further found that eliminating the team now would result in “immediate irreparable harm” to the Plaintiffs, whose next step is to seek a longer-term preliminary injunction requiring that their team be reinstated until a full trial on the merits of the case. The TRO ruling (Ruling) keeps in place the team’s financial support, coaching contracts, and access to facilities, among other program elements, which were slated to end this season.
The complaint alleged that UCONN was not effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of its female students, including failing to offer substantially equal athletic opportunities proportional to their undergraduate populations, as required by Title IX.
The Ruling addresses legal issues that affect colleges and universities across the country as they struggle with their athletic budgets and Title IX compliance. The Ruling “reject[ed] UConn’s argument that the size of ‘a viable team’ is calculated solely by identifying the average size of female squads at the university at issue[,]” which had been recently argued by other universities in Title IX cases. The Ruling further found: “[c]onsidering the average size of a women’s team at UConn would thus be counter to the goals of Title IX; it would reward UConn for artificially inflating the roster size to circumvent the statute’s mandate.”
Judge Underhill’s TRO Ruling and the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Case number 3:21-cv-00583-SRU