Supreme Court Issues Narrow Ruling in Title IX Case
From: Civil Rights Monitor Vol. 10, No. 3 (Summer 1999)
On February 23, 1999 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is not automatically covered by the anti-discrimination laws that apply to its member schools. The case, National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Smith (No. 98-84) was brought by Rene Smith who claimed that because the NCAA receives dues payments from member colleges, the organization must therefore abide by Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments which prohibits sex discrimination by any school that receives federal funding.
Background
Rene Smith played inter-collegiate volleyball for two seasons while attending St. Bonaventure University. After graduating from St. Bonaventure, Smith went on to graduate schools at two separate universities, Hofstra and Pittsburgh. Under NCAA regulations, an individual who has graduated from an undergraduate institution and then attends another university is barred from participating in an inter-collegiate sport unless the individual had played sports at the institution that granted the undergraduate degree. The NCAA refers to this rule as the Post-baccalaureate Bylaw. Accordingly, when Smith applied to play volleyball at Hofstra and Pittsburgh, she was denied the right to play under the NCAA Post-Baccalaureate Bylaw.
On Smith's behalf, both Hofstra University and the University of Pittsburgh petitioned the NCAA to waive the bylaw. The NCAA refused to grant Smith the necessary waiver to allow her to participate in the inter-collegiate sports programs. After repeated attempts to secure the waiver, Smith filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the NCAA had violated Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments, which bans sex discrimination in "any education program activity receiving Federal assistance," by granting more waivers to male than to female applicants. Smith charged that since the NCAA receives dues payments from schools that receive federal assistance, the NCAA should be required to abide by the same laws.
The District Court dismissed the suit, concluding that the alleged connections between the NCAA and federal financial assistance to member institutions were too weak to sustain a Title IX claim. Following this decision, Smith moved for leave to amend her complaint to allege that the NCAA directly and indirectly receives federal assistance through the National Youth Sports Program and operates an educational activity that benefits from such assistance. The District Court denied this motion as moot. The Third Circuit Court reversed that denial, holding that the NCAA did fall within the scope of Title IX due to its receipt of dues from federally funded educational institutions.
Opinion
On January 20, 1999 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Smith case, and handed down its unanimous decision on February 23, 1999. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court, writing
"The Third Circuit's reading of Section 106.2(h) failed to give effect to the regulation in its entirety. Section 106.2(h) defines "recipient" to include any entity "to whom Federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient and which operates an education program or activity which receives or benefits from such assistance." The first part of this definition makes clear that Title IX coverage is not triggered when an entity merely benefits from federal funding. Thus, the regulation accords with the teaching of Grove City and Paralyzed Veterans: Entities that receive federal assistance, whether directly or through an intermediary, are recipients within the meaning of Title IX; entities that only benefit economically from federal assistance are not.
"The Third Circuit's conclusion that the NCAA would be subject to the requirements of Title IX if it received dues from its federally funded members is inconsistent with this precedent. Unlike the earmarked student aid in Grove City, there is no allegation that NCAA members paid their dues with federal funds earmarked for that purpose. At most, the Association's receipt of dues demonstrates that it indirectly benefits from the federal assistance afforded its members. This showing, without more, is insufficient to trigger Title IX coverage."
The Court's decision is very narrow, holding that the NCAA's receipt of membership dues from federally funded schools does not suffice to subject the NCAA to Title IX. The 9-0 decision left open the possibility that relief may be available under Title IX for other reasons related to the NCAA's influence over its 1,200 member colleges and universities. The other two claims Smith made were not addressed by the Court for procedural reasons: that the NCAA itself receives federal funds directly through the National Youth Sports Program, and that because colleges and universities give up some control over their athletic programs to the NCAA, the Association must be covered by Title IX. Because the Court did not address these claims Smith is free to pursue them in lower courts.
To view the Court's opinion on the world wide web, go to: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/9884.ZS.html
