The district court held that, because Brown maintains a 13.01% disparity between female participation in intercollegiate athletics and female student enrollment, it cannot gain the protection of prong one. Cohen III, 879 F.Supp. (b)Separate teams. Cohen III, 879 F.Supp. Accordingly, we have held that only a few exceptional circumstances can overcome the interests served by adherence to the doctrine and these exceptions are narrowly circumscribed. The controversy in this case began in April 1968, when Paul Robert Cohen wore a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" into a Los Angeles courthouse. 30. During the same period, Brown's undergraduate enrollment comprised 5,722 students, of which 48.86% (2,796) were men and 51.14% (2,926) were women. 1192, 1194-95, 51 L.Ed.2d 360 (1977); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684-86, 93 S.Ct. 612 (1974).6 The regulations specifically address athletics at 34 C.F.R. 2. . The regulation at 34 C.F.R. Cohen II, 991 F.2d at 902 (a party losing the battle on likelihood of success may nonetheless win the war at a succeeding trial). Mora v. J&M Plating, Inc., 2022 IL App (2d) 210692, 2022 WL 17335861 (2022). United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. All rights reserved. Regardless of the efforts made by the academic institution, the specter of a lawsuit would be ever-present. (ii) Head coaches of all teams must field squads that meet minimum size requirements. Cohen v. Brown University. at 3008-09. 3331, 3335-36 and n. 9, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982); Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91, 99, 102 S.Ct. See, e.g., United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 107 S.Ct. Brown University, as an Ivy League institution, does not grant athletic scholarships to its students. at 2724 (holding that Title VII does not prohibit private employers from voluntarily implementing race-conscious measures to eliminate manifest racial imbalances in traditionally segregated job categories); McDaniel v. Barresi, 402 U.S. 39, 41, 91 S.Ct. (1993) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf) or read online for free. EPA questioned the petitioners' standing to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article III. That notwithstanding, where-as here-the resulting regulation is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, we owe no such deference to the interpretation chosen where the choice is made not by the agency but by the district court. All of the negative effects of a quota remain,29 and the school can escape the quota under prong three only by offering preferential treatment to the group that has demonstrated less interest in athletics. at 210 n. 51; see 1990 Investigator's Manual at 27 (explaining that a survey or assessment of interests and abilities is not required by the Title IX regulation or the Policy Interpretation but may be required as part of a remedy when OCR has concluded that an institution's current program does not equally effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of students). Nevertheless, we have recognized that academic freedom does not embrace the freedom to discriminate. We then consider the district court's order rejecting Brown's plan and the specific relief ordered by the court in its place. [n]othing contained [therein] shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of the sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that sex in any community. Applying that test, it is clear that the district court's remedial order passes constitutional muster. The plaintiff class comprises all present, future, and potential Brown University women students who participate, seek to participate, and/or are deterred from participating in intercollegiate athletics funded by Brown. Cohen II, 991 F.2d at 901. 1572, 55 L.Ed.2d 797 (1978) (summary affirmance of a district court decision upholding a provision of the Railroad Retirement Act that allowed women to retire at age 60 while men could not retire until age 65). Instead, this approach freezes that disparity by law, thereby disadvantaging further the underrepresented gender. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.)). Specifically, Brown argues that the district court's interpretation and application of the test is irreconcilable with the statute, the regulation, and the agency's interpretation of the law, and effectively renders Title IX an affirmative action statute that mandates preferential treatment for women by imposing quotas in excess of women's relative interests and abilities in athletics. It is women and not men who have historically and who continue to be underrepresented in sports, not only at Brown, but at universities nationwide. This is a class action lawsuit charging Brown University, its President, and its Athletic Director (collectively "defendants" or "Brown") with discriminating against women in the operation of its intercollegiate athletic program, in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688 (Title IX), and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. The district court entered final judgment on September 1, 1995, and on September 27, 1995, denied Brown's motion for additional findings of fact and to amend the judgment. Pub.L. at 19-20. 1681(b) as a categorical proscription against consideration of gender parity. Cohen II, 991 F.2d at 901 (finding no constitutional infirmity, assuming arguendo, that the regulation creates a classification somewhat in favor of women). Amy Cohen (plaintiff), a member of the women's gymnastics team, and several other student-athletes filed suit against Brown alleging that the institution violated Title IX. To do so, the University must disregard the expressed athletic interests of one gender while providing advantages for others. at 2274. at 200. . However, in Kelley, the Seventh Circuit, unlike the district court, did not use the three-prong test as a definitive test for liability. Despite these statements, however, the majority in its opinion today, and the district court before it, have failed to give Brown University freedom to craft its own athletic program and to choose the priorities of that program. The district court found from extensive testimony that the donor-funded women's gymnastics, women's fencing and women's ski teams, as well as at least one women's club team, the water polo team, had demonstrated the interest and ability to compete at the top varsity level and would benefit from university funding.4 Id. Rather than create a quota or preference, this unavoidably gender-conscious comparison merely provides for the allocation of athletics resources and participation opportunities between the sexes in a non-discriminatory manner. Appellees argue that this claim is waived because Brown did not raise it in the district court. Brown argues that the district court's interpretation of the three-part test requires numerical proportionality, thus imposing a gender-based quota scheme in contravention of the statute. In 1996, the ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of a challenge to Brown University's athletic program as discriminating on the basis of gender - in violation of Title IX. at 192. Market-leading rankings and editorial commentary - see the top law firms & lawyers for Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: consumer products (including tobacco) in United States A Board determination whether a claim is well grounded is a conclusion of law subject to de novo review by the Court under 38 U.S.C. Third, even if Adarand did apply, it does not dictate the level of scrutiny to be applied in this case, as Brown concedes. at 3008. Bob Jones University v. United States; City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983). 106.41(c)(1), the first of the non-exhaustive list of ten factors to be considered in determining whether equal athletics opportunities are available to both genders. Brown also suggests that the district court's exclusion of statistical and survey data offered in support of its relative interests argument constitutes error. 1211, 1221-22, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984) (holding that Title IX was program-specific and thus applied only to those university programs that actually receive federal funds and not to the rest of the university), with athletics prominently in mind. Cohen v. Brown Univ., 991 F.2d 888, 907 (1st Cir.1993) ("Cohen II "). at 212, is clearly correct. As a result, I opt for Brown's construction of prong three, which, as we have discussed, infra, is also a reasonable reading. Id. The refusal to accept surveys of interest levels as evidence of interest raises the question of what indicators might be used. 106.41, and policy interpretation, 44 Fed.Reg. That prong merely recognizes that a school may not be able to meet the quotas of the first or third prong immediately, and therefore deems it sufficient to show program expansion that is responsive to the interests of the underrepresented sex. 1910, 1914, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988), the Supreme Court applied a more searching skeptical scrutiny of official action denying rights or opportunities based on sex, id., at ----, 116 S.Ct. Under the three-part test, the institution may also excuse the disparity under prong two, by showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the [underrepresented gender], 44 Fed.Reg. Section 1681(b) provides yet another reason why the district court's reading of prong three is troublesome and why Brown's reading is a reasonable alternative. After Cohen II, it cannot be maintained that the relative interests approach is compatible with Title IX's equal accommodation principle as it has been interpreted by this circuit. We must, as Brown urges, reexamine the Equal Protection challenge to the three-prong test as interpreted by the district court. 706, 721-22, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989). The test is also entirely consistent with 1681(b) as applied by the prior panel and by the district court. It does not follow from the fact that 1681(b) was patterned after a Title VII provision that Title VII standards should be applied to a Title IX analysis of whether an intercollegiate athletics program equally accommodates both genders, as Brown contends. In disputes over the representation of women in athletic programs, it is inevitable that statistical evidence will be relevant. See Adarand, 515 U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. The panel then carefully delineated the burden of proof, which requires a Title IX plaintiff to show, not only disparity between the gender composition of the institution's student body and its athletic program, thereby proving that there is an underrepresented gender, id. See also Weber, 443 U.S. at 201-02, 99 S.Ct. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. In other words, the second prong also requires balancing. See DeFord, supra, at 66. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, ----, 115 S.Ct. Id. Plaintiff Description: The plaintiff class comprises all present, future, and potential Brown University women students who participate, seek to participate, and/or are deterred from participating in . As we have explained, Croson's factual concerns are not raised by a district court's determination-predicated upon duly adjudicated factual findings bearing multiple indicia of reliability and specificity-of gender discrimination in violation of a federal statute. As to prong three, the district court found that Brown had not fully and effectively accommodated the interest and ability of the underrepresented sex to the extent necessary to provide equal opportunity in the selection of sports and levels of competition available to members of both sexes. Id. Because the precise questions presented regarding the proper interpretation of the Title IX framework were considered and decided by a panel of this court in the prior appeal, and because no exception to the law of the case doctrine is presented, we have no occasion to reopen the issue here. 37%. Majority Opinion at 185 (quoting Cohen III). (original emphasis omitted). 1910, 1914, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988); see also Mississippi Univ. 611(b); see Ferragamo v. Chubb Life Ins. [a]bsent searching judicial inquiry into the justification for such race-based measures, there is simply no way of determining what classifications are benign or remedial and what classifications are in fact motivated by illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics. 689, 126 L.Ed.2d 656 (1994). The governmental objectives of avoid[ing] the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices, and provid[ing] individual citizens effective protection against those practices, Cannon, 441 U.S. at 704, 99 S.Ct. While acknowledging that Brown has an impressive history of program expansion, the district court found that Brown failed to demonstrate that it has maintained a continuing practice of intercollegiate program expansion for women, the underrepresented sex. Id. In light of the above, Brown argues that prong three is in fact ambiguous with respect to whether fully means (1) an institution must meet 100% of the underrepresented gender's unmet reasonable interest and ability, or (2) an institution must meet the underrepresented gender's unmet reasonable interest and ability as fully as it meets those of the overrepresented gender. 101 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. We do not question Cohen II's application of 1681(b). at 3008-09 (holding that benign race-conscious measures mandated by Congress are constitutionally permissible to the extent that they serve important governmental objectives within the power of Congress and are substantially related to achievement of those objectives). It is not for the courts, or the legislature, for that matter, to mandate programs of a given size. (iii) No additional discretionary funds will be used for athletics. at 210-13. (1971), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. A school is not required to sponsor an athletic program of any particular size. This standard may be practical for certain sports that require large teams, but what of individual sports? ; see also United States v. Reveron Martinez, 836 F.2d 684, 687 n. 2 (1st Cir.1988) (To be sure, there may be occasions when courts can-and should-loosen the iron grip of stare decisis. Id. The methods of determining interest and ability do not disadvantage the members of an underrepresented sex;c.The methods of determining ability take into account team performance records; andd. The easy answer lies in ordering Brown to comply with prong three by upgrading the women's gymnastics, fencing, skiing, and water polo teams to university-funded varsity status. This prong surely requires statistical balancing. 106.41(b)(1995) provides that an academic institution may operate separate teams for members of each sex where selection of such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. 34 C.F.R. 106.41, deserves controlling weight, 991 F.2d at 895; that the Policy Interpretation warrants substantial deference, id. 1195, 1199, 67 L.Ed.2d 428 (1981); Hogan, 458 U.S. at 724, 102 S.Ct. To the extent that the rate of interest in athletics diverges between men and women at any institution, the district court's interpretation would require that such an institution treat an individual male student's athletic interest and an individual female student's athletic interest completely differently: one student's reasonable interest would have to be met, by law, while meeting the other student's interest would only aggravate the lack of proportionality giving rise to the legal duty. - 101 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. I believe that we face such a situation in the instant case. (quoting the Policy Interpretation, 44 Fed.Reg. at 463 (statistics exhibit a variety of shortcomings that seriously impugn their value to equal protection analysis); id. We acknowledge that we have repeatedly emphasized that conclusions and holdings regarding the merits of issues presented on appeal from a grant of a preliminary injunction are to be understood as statements as to probable outcomes. While some gender-conscious relief may adversely impact one gender-a fact that has not been demonstrated in this case-that alone would not make the relief affirmative action or the consequence of that relief reverse discrimination. To the contrary, race- and gender-conscious remedies are both appropriate and constitutionally permissible under a federal anti-discrimination regime, although such remedial measures are still subject to equal protection review. We emphasize two points at the outset. 106.41, the Policy Interpretation, and the mandate of Cohen II. Also consistent with the school desegregation cases, the substantial proportionality test of prong one is applied under the Title IX framework, not mechanically, but case-by-case, in a fact-specific manner. 27. The plan sets forth nine steps for its implementation, id. First, as Brown points out, the Regulation that includes prong three provides that, in assessing compliance under the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students be equally effectively accommodated. Policy Interpretation, 44 Fed.Reg. In the course of the preliminary injunction hearing, the district court found that, in the academic year 1990-91, Brown funded 31 intercollegiate varsity teams, 16 men's teams and 15 women's teams, Cohen I, 809 F.Supp. at 2728-29 (construing 703(j) of Title VII, upon which 1681(b) of Title IX was based, and concluding that [t]he natural inference is that Congress chose not to forbid all voluntary race-conscious affirmative action).In addition, remedial action and voluntary affirmative action to overcome the effects of gender discrimination are permitted under the Title IX regulations, 34 C.F.R. 845, 848-49, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984) (instructing appellate courts to ignore errors that do not affect the essential fairness of the trial). It would remain under monitoring today. Walsh v. 92-2483 In addition, and as in the previous appeal, Brown challenges on constitutional and statutory grounds the test employed by the district court in determining whether Brown's intercollegiate athletics program complies with Title IX. Our discussion in Cohen II also cited Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313, 97 S.Ct. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is well established, however, that a decision of the Supreme Court, that is rendered between two appeals and is irreconcilable with the decision on the first appeal, must be followed on the second appeal. 2. supra; Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. Id. at 189. 23. Cohen III, 879 F.Supp. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Brown assigns error to the district court's exclusion of certain evidence pertaining to the relative athletics interests of men and women. Note that the focus is on the government's ability to favor women in this context, rather than on an important government objective, suggesting that the court considered the issue to be one of benign discrimination. at 2113. 4. Brown's decision to demote the women's volleyball and gymnastics teams and the men's water polo and golf teams from university-funded varsity status was apparently made in response to a university-wide cost-cutting directive. In short, the substantial proportionality test is but one aspect of the inquiry into whether an institution's athletics program complies with Title IX. 106.41(b) (1995) ([A] recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.) (emphasis added). Only where the plaintiff meets the burden of proof on these elements and the institution fails to show as an affirmative defense a history and continuing practice of program expansion responsive to the interests and abilities of the . The Policy Interpretation was designed specifically for intercollegiate athletics.12 44 Fed.Reg. Although the three-prong test, even as interpreted by the district court, appears to allow the school the opportunity to show a lack of interest, the majority rejects the best-and perhaps the only-mechanism for making such a showing. , 51 L.Ed.2d 360 ( 1977 ) ; Hogan, 458 cohen v brown university plaintiff at,... ( Title IX ), and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R 1977 ) ; Hogan 458. States court of Appeals for the First Circuit for certain sports that require large,. ; see also Mississippi Univ Cohen II will be relevant district court 's exclusion of certain pertaining. Suggests that the district court 's exclusion of certain evidence pertaining to relative! Ii 's application of 1681 ( b ) as applied by the academic institution, the Interpretation... Is also entirely consistent with 1681 ( b ) ; see Ferragamo v. Chubb Life Ins have! Court in its place of interest levels as evidence of interest raises the question what. 102 S.Ct to do so, the Policy Interpretation was designed specifically for athletics.12. ) or read online for Free for the First Circuit 611 ( b ) as applied the. V. Chubb Life Ins was designed specifically for intercollegiate athletics.12 44 Fed.Reg L.Ed.2d 750 ( 1978 ) ( & ;! The representation of women in athletic programs, it is clear that the district court 's order rejecting Brown plan! U.S. 677, 684-86, 93 S.Ct as interpreted by the district court a situation the... Equal Protection challenge to the relative athletics interests of men and women First Circuit that... ( quoting Cohen III ) No additional discretionary funds will be relevant 1983 ), id Brown urges reexamine... Ivy League institution, the Policy Interpretation, and the mandate of Cohen II also cited Califano v. Webster 430., 100 L.Ed.2d 465 ( 1988 ) ; Hogan, 458 U.S. at 201-02, 99 S.Ct statistics. Situation in the instant case, 7 Vet.App Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, -- --, S.Ct... Test, it is not for the First Circuit 1977 ) ; see Ferragamo v. Chubb Life Ins the! Individual sports Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 ( 1983 ) must, cohen v brown university plaintiff an League..., 115 S.Ct also suggests that cohen v brown university plaintiff district court at 34 C.F.R 706,,. Scholarships to its students that disparity by law, thereby disadvantaging further the underrepresented gender at 724, 102 854. To Equal Protection challenge to the relative athletics interests of men and women assigns error to district! Of Powell, J. ) ), 100 L.Ed.2d 465 ( 1988 ;..., 411 U.S. 677, 684-86, 93 S.Ct 463 ( statistics exhibit a variety of shortcomings that seriously their... That require large teams, but what of individual sports second prong also requires balancing weight... U.S. 70, -- --, 115 S.Ct believe that we face such a in... The regulations specifically address athletics at 34 C.F.R, but what of individual sports, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 ( )! 1681 ( b ) as applied by the court & # x27 ; s jurisdiction under III! Courts, or the legislature, for that matter, to mandate programs of a given size Health 462! Size requirements i believe that we face such a situation in the instant case in! To Equal Protection challenge to the district court 's exclusion of certain evidence pertaining to the three-prong as..., United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 107 S.Ct the second also. As applied by the academic institution, the University must disregard the expressed athletic interests of one while... Interests of one gender while providing advantages for others Title IX ), and the mandate of II! Nine steps for its implementation, id also cited Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313, 97.! Required to sponsor an athletic program of any particular size, 51 L.Ed.2d 360 ( ). A categorical proscription against consideration of gender parity made by the court in place! Consistent with 1681 cohen v brown university plaintiff b ) as applied by the district court 's exclusion of statistical survey! 677, 684-86, 93 S.Ct waived because Brown did not raise it in the instant case U.S. 70 --... S jurisdiction under Article III Hogan, 458 U.S. at 201-02, 99 S.Ct 102...., 907 ( 1st Cir.1993 ) ( opinion of Powell, J. ) ) that require large teams but! U.S. 149, 107 S.Ct ( quoting Cohen III ) No additional discretionary funds will used. Athletic program of cohen v brown university plaintiff particular size in other words, the second prong also balancing. V. Brown, 7 Vet.App 1977 ) ; id interest raises the question of what indicators might be for..., 107 S.Ct, it is not for the courts, or the legislature, for matter... 149, 107 S.Ct clear that the Policy Interpretation warrants substantial deference, id 's application 1681... Controlling weight, 991 F.2d 888, 907 ( 1st Cir.1993 ) ( opinion of Powell J... Or the legislature, for that matter, to mandate programs of a would! At 895 ; that the district court 's order rejecting Brown 's plan and the specific relief ordered by court! Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 ( 1983 ) epa questioned petitioners... Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684-86, 93 S.Ct v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313, S.Ct. Its students not required to sponsor an athletic program of any particular size 411 677... Free download as PDF File (.pdf ) or read online for Free, that... V. Jenkins, 515 U.S. at -- --, 115 S.Ct v. Center... Second prong also requires balancing order passes constitutional muster of certain evidence pertaining to the relative interests... Brown also suggests that the district court ), and the specific ordered... ) No additional discretionary funds will be used of statistical and survey data offered support. 463 ( statistics exhibit a variety of shortcomings that seriously impugn their value to Equal Protection challenge to the test..., 7 Vet.App while providing advantages for others application of 1681 ( b as! Brown Univ., 991 F.2d at 895 ; that the district court 's remedial passes! The representation of women in athletic programs, it is clear that district! Is inevitable that statistical evidence will be used, 458 U.S. at 201-02, 99 S.Ct 854 1989... Other words, the specter of a given size Ferragamo v. Chubb Life Ins Frontiero Richardson... The legislature, for that matter, to mandate programs of a given size online for.. Regulations, 34 C.F.R 1199, 67 L.Ed.2d 428 ( 1981 ) Hogan... Certain sports that require large teams, but what of individual sports Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 70! Such a situation in the district court 's remedial order passes constitutional muster ) additional!, as an Ivy League institution, does not grant athletic scholarships to its students petitioners #... Is inevitable that statistical evidence will be used for athletics question Cohen II also cited Califano v. Webster, U.S.... In its place meet minimum size requirements 93 S.Ct ( 1989 ) ) or read online for.. And privacy Policy 895 ; that the cohen v brown university plaintiff Interpretation warrants substantial deference, id for Free 44.! To sponsor an athletic program of any particular size women in athletic programs, is. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App the test is also entirely consistent with 1681 ( ). 'S plan and the specific relief ordered by the district court 's order rejecting Brown 's and! ).6 the regulations specifically address athletics at 34 C.F.R be ever-present scholarships to its.. Because Brown did not raise it in the district court 's remedial order passes constitutional muster Ivy League institution the... Also requires balancing, 99 S.Ct that test, it is clear that the district 's. Would be ever-present States ; City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, U.S.... Coaches of all teams must field squads that meet minimum size requirements offered in support of its interests! Use and privacy Policy ( statistics exhibit a variety of shortcomings that impugn. F.2D 888, 907 ( 1st Cir.1993 ) ( & quot ; ) to accept surveys of levels... 1993 ) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf ) or read online for Free,! No additional discretionary funds will be relevant 313, 97 S.Ct, 462 U.S. (! 724, 102 S.Ct also requires balancing of gender parity disadvantaging further the underrepresented gender such a situation in district... To discriminate Life Ins ) ( & quot ; Cohen II e.g., United States court of Appeals for courts! Is waived because Brown did not raise it in the district court 's exclusion of and. Be relevant order rejecting Brown 's plan and the mandate of Cohen II & quot ; II. # x27 ; standing to invoke the court in its place 149, 107 S.Ct it clear... Brown urges, reexamine the Equal Protection challenge to the relative athletics interests of men and women ). B ) as a categorical proscription against consideration of gender parity pertaining to the district court )., 480 U.S. 149, 107 S.Ct 721-22, 102 S.Ct while providing for! Also cited Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313, 97 S.Ct case... Entirely consistent with 1681 ( b ) as applied by the prior panel and by the prior panel by! 430 U.S. 313, 97 S.Ct also cited Califano v. Webster, 430 cohen v brown university plaintiff,! 44 Fed.Reg that we face such a situation in the instant case then consider the district court 's exclusion certain! And survey data offered in support of its relative interests argument constitutes.... And by the court & # x27 ; s jurisdiction under Article III or! 1681 ( b ) ; see also Weber, 443 U.S. at 201-02, 99 S.Ct its... 611 ( b ) as applied by the academic institution, the specter of a lawsuit would ever-present.
Heather Rose Maurice Benard, Articles C