Miami University Wrestling Club et al. v. Miami University et al.
Name of case: MIAMI UNIVERSITY WRESTLING CLUB; MIAMI UNIVERSITY SOCCER CLUB; MIAMI UNIVERSITY TENNIS CLUB; MICHAEL AMBROSE; NATHAN STUDNEY; CHRISTOPHER TANGEN; TERRENCE WRIGHT; RYAN PALLINGER; SHAUN SOUCIE; JASON MURPHY; NICHOLAS BINGE; STEVEN MARIO CONTARDI; WILLIAM S. BLOOM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MIAMI UNIVERSITY; JAMES C. GARLAND; JOEL MATURI; WAYNE R. EMBRY; RICHARD FARMER; ROGER L. HOWE; ELEANOR B. IRWIN; FRED LICK, JR.; LAUREL PRESSLER; KATHLEEN M. ZOUHARY; CHANDRA R. SHAH; FRED G. WALL, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-3182
Location: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
302 F.3d 608; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18430; 2002 FED App. 0306P (6th Cir.)
Date: August 7, 2002, Argued
September 9, 2002, Decided
September 9, 2002, Filed
Brief Summary of the facts of the case – The male athletes at Miami University, a state university that received federal funds, whom had been effected by Title IX due to Miami University eliminating the men’s soccer, tennis and wrestling programs, sued the school on the grounds of gender discrimination and violation of their rights to equal protection. The district court said that there was nothing in the complaint that could be seen as a direct challenge to the law, regulations, or policy interpretation. Since the university took the necessary actions to comply with Title IX, and since Title IX was now established law, the regulations or policy interpretation that Miami University took to comply with Title IX were necessary and successful. Only if Title IX were unconstitutional could the court hold the university’s actions unconstitutional. The male athletes appealed the case.
Disposition of the case – The district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment and also denied all other pending motions as moot. The male university athletes, the appellants in this case, challenged the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and appealed the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the university and dismissed the action.
Significance of the case for a manager – A manager does not need to fear lawsuits of reverse discrimination by implementing the legal requirements of Title IX. Although eliminating male programs and reducing male athletes in order to comply with Title IX can create tension with the male athletes whose programs are being eliminated, the male athletes have no legal grounds for bringing suits against the manager or university for gender discrimination or equal protection.