Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n

12 Citing cases

  1. A.B. v. Haw. State Dep't of Educ.

    386 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (D. Haw. 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Finding Communities for Equity "persuasive and instructive" without referencing the basis of its ruling

    Nevertheless, courts outside of the Ninth Circuit have ruled that an entity that has controlling authority over a federally funded program is also subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX. See, e.g., Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007) ("[I]f we allowed funding recipients to cede control over their programs to indirect funding recipients but did not hold indirect funding recipients liable for Title IX violations, we would allow funding recipients to ... avoid Title IX liability"); Horner v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 43 F.3d 265, 271-72 (6th Cir. 1994) (because Kentucky's state laws conferred authority to the Kentucky State Board of Education ("BOE") and Kentucky High School Athletic Association ("KHSAA") to control certain activities for the federally funded Kentucky Department of Education, the BOE and KHSAA were both subject to Title IX); Cmtys. for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 80 F. Supp. 2d 729, 735 (W.D. Mich. 2000) (ruling that "any entity that exercises controlling authority over a federally funded program is subject to Title IX, regardless of whether that entity is itself a recipient of federal aid"). In Smith, the Supreme Court stated:

  2. Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School

    178 F. Supp. 2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001)

    This Court held earlier during the course of this litigation that "any entity that exercises controlling authority over a federally funded program is subject to Title IX, regardless of whether that entity is itself a recipient of federal aid." Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 80 F. Supp.2d 729, 735 (W.D.Mich. 2000). Based on the findings of fact, the Court must decide the extent to which Defendant MHSAA exerts control over interscholastic athletic programs of Michigan high schools, which are almost all federal funding recipients, to determine if Title IX applies to Defendant.

  3. COMMUNITIES FOR EQUITY v. MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL AA

    178 F. Supp. 2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001)

    This Court held earlier during the course of this litigation that "any entity that exercises controlling authority over a federally funded program is subject to Title IX, regardless of whether that entity is itself a recipient of federal aid." Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 80 F. Supp.2d 729, 735 (W.D.Mich. 2000). Based on the findings of fact, the Court must decide the extent to which Defendant MHSAA exerts control over interscholastic athletic programs of Michigan high schools, which are almost all federal funding recipients, to determine if Title IX applies to Defendant.

  4. Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School

    Case No. 1:98-CV-479 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2001)

    On January 21, 2000, the Court held that MHSAA is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Comms. ForEquity v. Mich. High Sch. AthleticAssn, 80 F. Supp.2d 729, 742 (W.D.Mich. 2000). In their Brief

  5. Doe v. CVS Pharm.

    18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that parent and subsidiaries were both proper defendants in a Section 1557 suit, even if only the parent received federal funds, because "[t]o ignore the overall interrelationship among the entities which, in the case at bar, design and implement the allegedly discriminatory program . . . would exalt form over substance and impair the effectiveness of the anti-discrimination provision of the [Affordable Care Act]"

    See, e.g., Horner v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass 'n, 43 F.3d 265, 271-72 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that because Kentucky's state laws conferred authority to the Kentucky State Board of Education (“BOE”) and Kentucky High School Athletic Association (“KHSAA”) to control certain activities for the federally funded Kentucky Department of Education, the BOE and KHSAA were both subject to Title IX); Cmtys. for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. AthleticAss'n, 80 F.Supp.2d 729, 735 (W.D. Mich. 2000) (ruling that “any entity that exercises controlling authority over a federally funded program is subject to Title IX, regardless of whether that entity is itself a recipient of federal aid”); Barrs v. S. Conf., 734 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1235 (N.D. Ala. 2010) (denying motion to dismiss where plaintiffs alleged that defendant “governs, regulates, operates, and controls” the intercollegiate athletics of its member schools and those schools “delegate and assign the authority to do so” to defendant). In choosing to find an entity with controlling authority covered, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that “if we allowed funding recipients to cede control over their programs to indirect funding recipients but did not hold indirect funding recipients liable for Title IX violations, we would allow funding recipients to receive federal funds but avoid Title IX liability.”

  6. Johnny's Icehouse v. Amateur Hockey Ass'n Illinois

    134 F. Supp. 2d 965 (N.D. Ill. 2001)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "tax exempt status, without more, is ... insufficient to subject it to the antidiscrimination requirements of Title IX"

    Accord, relying on Cureton, Kemether v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, 1999 WL 1012957 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 8, 1999). And more recently Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 80 F. Supp.2d 729, 734 (W.D.Mich. 2000) reasoned that a failure to hold entities with controlling authority over federally funded programs subject to Title IX would thwart the purposes of the statute and amount to "empty formalism": This opinion looks to caselaw interpreting both 29 U.S.C. § 794, part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act § 504"), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI," 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7) to construe Title IX, for all three statutes prohibit discrimination using substantially the same terms. As stated in Department of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597, 600 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. 2705, 91 L.Ed.2d 494 (1986):

  7. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ

    477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007)   Cited 547 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Eleventh Amendment bar[red] suit against" the Board, which is a "state entit[y] for Eleventh Amendment purposes"

    We are persuaded, however, by the analysis of the Western District of Michigan, noting that if we allowed funding recipients to cede control over their programs to indirect funding recipients but did not hold indirect funding recipients liable for Title IX violations, we would allow funding recipients to receive federal funds but avoid Title IX liability. Cmtys. for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 80 F.Supp.2d 729, 733-34 (W.D.Mich.2000). We hold that Williams's complaint sufficiently alleges this element, and we leave for the discovery process and the district court to determine whether to treat UGAA like a funding recipient.

  8. Williams v. Board of Regents of Univ. Sys

    441 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2006)   Cited 17 times

    We are persuaded, however, by the analysis of the Western District of Michigan, noting that if we allowed funding recipients to cede control over their programs to indirect funding recipients but did not hold indirect funding recipients liable for Title IX violations, we would allow funding recipients to receive federal funds but avoid Title IX liability. Cmtys. for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 80 F.Supp.2d 729, 733-34 (W.D.Mich. 2000). We hold that Williams's complaint sufficiently alleges this element, and we leave for the discovery process and the district court to determine whether to treat UGAA like a funding recipient.

  9. Mullen v. S. Denver Rehab., LLC

    Civil Action No. 18-cv-01552-MEH (D. Colo. May. 20, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    See id. at 116-17. Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 80 F. Supp. 2d 729, 735 (W.D. Mich. 2000). But see A.B. by C.B. v. Hawaii State Dep't of Educ., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1352, 1357 (D. Haw. 2019) (finding Communities for Equity "persuasive and instructive" without referencing the basis of its ruling).

  10. COMMUNITIES FOR EQUITY v. MICHIGAN HIGH S. ATHL. ASS

    Case No. 1:98-CV-479 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2008)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that, while a Michelangelo should not paint a "farmer's barn" for "Sistine Chapel rates," plaintiffs' counsel are "in the best position to determine how their time and the time of their associates" should be allocated

    Resp. 14.) In reported decisions alone, Plaintiffs defeated MHSAA's 1998 Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, Communities for Equity v. MHSAA, 26 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (W.D. Mich. 1998); achieved class certification, Communities for Equity v. MHSAA, 192 F.R.D. 568 (W.D. Mich. 1999); defeated MHSAA's Second Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, Communities for Equity v. MHSAA, 80 F. Supp. 2d 729 (W.D. Mich. 2000); succeeded in significant Motions in Limine, Communities for Equity v. MHSAA, 137 F. Supp. 2d 910 (W.D. Mich. 2001); and won on the liability issues tried by the Court, Communities for Equity v. MHSAA, 178 F. Supp. 2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001). Plaintiffs were also extremely successful at the appellate level.