This imprecision has caused allsorts of difficulties for lower courts, but has never been clarified by theSupreme Court.
May be imprecise simply because there has been no movement to make it exact, and courts just go wit the way it is.
9 Matching Annotations
- Sep 2020
-
inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net
-
-
hat is, the plaintiffs first must show that the participation rates andenrollment rates are not substantially proportionate to succeed in a Title IXsuit.' The defendants also then must fail to show that there is a pattern ofcontinuing expansion, and fail to show that the institution is fully and effec-tively accommodating the interests and abilities of the women students inorder for a court to find a violation of Title IX
I feel like there is much harder process to go through to prove violation of Title lX than there needs to be here.
-
it would violate Title VII even if the em-ployer did not intend to discriminate by instituting the requiremen
sometimes there is just physical differences between men and women and it doesn't mean to be discriminating its just the way it is.
-
There is a lack of general student interest in women's ice hockey
To build of what Mary said which I agree with. perhaps the institutions play a waiting game with one another to follow a trend a conform with what everyone else is doing. So if there isn't a general trend to upgrade to a varsity team why should we kind of deal.
-
The WashingtonSupreme Court declared that there is no exemption from the Equal Rights Amendment forfootball, but the court allowed revenue earned by athletic teams to be taken into accountwhen comparing budgets for men's and women's athletic programs.
Even courts take into consideration of revenue men's vs. women's teams bring in. It's always going to be a battle when trying to accommodate all the sports teams on a campus.
-
However, interpretation of the requirementsof this prong is crucial. If "substantially proportionate" is taken to mean thatthe percentage of women among an institution's athletes must be within afew percentage points of the percentage of women in the undergraduate stu-dent body, then nearly every institution in the country with a major athleticsprogram would fail this prong of the test for Title IX compliance.2
This points out that interpretation of these prongs can be very vital in the actual outcome of them. therefore the proportionate of women in athletics interpreted a few ways can be wrong.
-
After the Title IX regulations were promulgated, the Office for CivilRights (OCR) of the Department of Education issued a Policy InterpretationManual to aid schools in understanding the regulations.6
Shows that the OCR was looking to make sure everyone had a clear understanding of what was gonna be laid out in Title lX
-
he University agreed to move its participationrate from the current 23% to 44% over a period of five years and to raise the portion of thefinancial aid going to women athletes to 42%. Diane Heckman describes how in Kiechel v.Auburn Univ., No. CV-93-V-474-E (M.D. Ala. filed Apr. 14, 1993), the plaintiffs settled for$460,000 in damages plus $80,000 for legal fees, the formation of a soccer team for at leastfive years, with a budget of $400,000 for 1993-94 and 1994-95 combined, four scholarships for1993-94, and adequate practice and game facilities. Prior to the suit, 45% of the students and25% of the athletes were women and only 7-11% of the university's athletics budget wasspent on women's teams.
The school was able to show history of progression here while not maintaining proportionality. Showing that only having to oblige by one test is flawed.
-
Title IX applies to all of an institution's programs if any partof an educational institution receives federal funds; thus an athletics program need not be thedirect recipient of federal funding in order to be subject to Title IX requirements
This makes it easier to push title lX onto institutes.
-