Communities for Equity
v.
Michigan High School Athletic Association

192 F.R.D. 568, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5780 (W.D. Mich. 1999)

What's Going On?

Plaintiffs move to certify a class of female high school athletes claiming to be adversely affected by the allegedly discriminatory policies of a state high school athletic association.

Who's Who?

Plaintiffs     :

Communities for Equity, et al – female athletes and their representatives.

Defendants :

Michigan High School Athletic Association, et al – state high school athletic association and its representative council.

Facts:

Plaintiffs, female athletes and their representatives, bring suit against Defendants, Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) and its Representative Council, alleging gender discrimination in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Fourteenth Amendment, and laws of the state of Michigan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have excluded Plaintiffs from participating in interscholastic athletic programs, and have treated Plaintiffs unequally in these programs. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants require Plaintiffs to play sports in non-traditional seasons, in inferior athletic facilities, on inferior dates, and in shorter athletic seasons in comparison to male athletes. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants allocate fewer resources to Plaintiffs than to male athletes, and that Defendants have refused to sanction girls' ice hockey and water polo. Plaintiffs move for class certification, asking the court to define the proposed class as “all present and future female students enrolled in MHSAA member schools who participate in interscholastic athletics or who are deterred from participating in interscholastic athletics because of Defendants' discriminatory conduct and who are adversely affected by that conduct.”

Issue:

May a group of high school female athletes claiming to be adversely affected by the allegedly discriminatory policies of a high school athletic association be certified as a class under FRCP 23?

Decision:

Yes. A court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” into whether the prerequisites of FRCP 23 are met before a class is certified. Under the “rigorous analysis” requirement, a class is not maintainable merely because the complaint recites the legal requirements of Rule 23. Rule 23(a)(1) requires the proposed class to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs' proposed class comprises thousands of female high school athletes and would-be athletes, therefore, the numerosity requirement is satisfied. Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there are questions of law and fact common to class members. The common issues must be such that the resolution of those issues will advance the litigation. In this case, the common, overarching question is, did Defendants act in a manner inconsistent with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Fourteenth Amendment, and laws of the state of Michigan? The answer to the question will depend on the resolution of factual questions regarding Defendants' decision-making process and outcomes. Rule 23(a)(3) requires the court to determine whether the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class. This requirement demands the most attention. The court must evaluate the facts of the case in light of the Supreme Court's holding in General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, the holding of which bars the certification of classes where a number of different alleged harms have not been suffered uniformly by the proposed class representatives. In this case, the various discrete harms alleged by Plaintiffs are all allegedly suffered by members of Plaintiff Communities for Equity, a proposed class representative. The Falcon Court also provided for the possibility of broad-based attacks on discrimination where there was proof of an underlying policy of discrimination, which is alleged in this case. Therefore, the typicality requirement is met. Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class members and their counsel be prepared to provide fair and adequate representation to the class. This requirement is met because (1) Plaintiffs have common interests with the unnamed members of the class, and (2) Plaintiffs' counsel, experienced in Title IX litigation, is qualified to represent and prosecute the interests of the class. Class certification for injunctive relief is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants act or refuse to act on grounds generally applicable to the class through their alleged discriminatory policies, and injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy for discriminatory treatment. The motion for class certification shall be granted.

Basic Rule:

Before certifying a class, the court must conduct a ”rigorous analysis” into whether the prerequisites of FRCP 23 are met, which requires the court to ensure that the complaint goes beyond merely reciting the legal requirements of FRCP 23.

Terms:

Class :

A group of individuals whose legal positions are sufficiently similar to allow their claims to be litigated in a single proceeding.

Class action :

A suit on behalf of members of a large group of persons brought by a single person or a small group of persons who represent the larger group.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us