McCormick v. School District of Mamaroneck, No. 03-7892 (2d Cir. June 4, 2004)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that two New York school districts that offer girls’ soccer in the spring, rather than in the fall as they do for boys’ soccer, are in violation of Title IX. The vast majority of New York’s public high schools holds girls’ soccer in the fall, when the New York Public High School Athletic Association (NYSPHSAA) holds its state championship. However, Pelham and Mamaroneck school districts offer girls’ soccer in the spring, thereby depriving their girls’ teams of the opportunity to compete for the state championship. In contrast, boys’ soccer is offered in the fall, allowing the boys to compete for the championship. The parents of several female players filed suit in federal court, claiming violation of Title IX. Not only does the practice deprive girls of the opportunity to compete for the championship, the plaintiffs argued, but it also deprives them of chances to win college athletic scholarships, because college coaches and scouts typically recruit during the fall. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed that the schedule violates Title IX. The district court granted the plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief, ordering the school districts to develop a compliance plan to move girls’ soccer from spring to fall. The Second Circuit affirmed, but it modified the district court order to allow the school districts to submit alternative Title IX compliance plans, such as alternating boys’ and girls’ soccer between fall and spring. Relying on the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) interpretation of Title IX’s implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c), the Second Circuit concluded that the school districts had failed to provide girls’ soccer with the "equivalence of … opportunities to engage in available pre-season and post-season competition" as boys’ soccer. This disparity was "substantial enough to deny equality of athletic opportunity to girls…." While acknowledging that OCR’s policy interpretation allows disparity where justified by nondiscriminatory factors, the court found the reasons offered by the school districts inadequate to justify the "inferior treatment of female athletes." The Second Circuit also rejected the school districts’ argument that the results of their survey of female student-athletes demonstrated that they were providing effective accommodation and, thus, were in compliance with Title IX. While the survey addressed questions of sufficient opportunities for participation, it failed to address the questions of competitive schedules and relative opportunities for boys’ and girls’ teams that were at issue in this case.