Question 1
A.
1 Equal Protection Clause. In Equal Protection Clause, if the distinction is based on gender, it will receive intermediate scrutiny. That means this distinction should substantially related to an important government interest.
2.Title IX. According to Title IX, No person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance on the basis of sex.
3.1978 OCR Policy Interpretation. 1978 OCR Policy Interpretation establishes a three-part test to determine whether equal athletics are available to both genders. It inquires as follows:
(1)Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments;or (Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 161)
(2)Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or (Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 161)
(3)Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.(Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 161)
B.
Proposed Budget No.1:
Eliminating some women’s programs but no men’s programs because men’s programs can generate more revenue than women’s programs is a violation of Title IX. According to the statistics shown by The Board, in 2014-2015, 53% of the enrolled undergraduate students are male and 47% are female. However, 70% of the sports participants are male and only 30% are female. Mason University maintained a 17% disparity between female participation in athletics and female student enrollment. Eliminating some women’s programs but no men’s programs will make this disparity bigger and can be regarded as “discrimination based on gender”. What’s more, the purpose of Title IX is to provide equal oppotunity in the selection of sports and levels of competition available to members of both sexes. A bigger disparity can not provide equal oppotunity to both sexes. So, it is a violation of Title IX.
Proposed Budget No.2:
Because Mason University maintain a 17% disparity between female participation in sports and female student enrollment in 2014-2015, it can not gain the protection of prong one in 1978 OCR Policy Interpretation.From 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, female participation in sports is becoming larger and larger. It is a “program expansion”. However, eliminating an equal number of men’s and women’s “nonrevenue”programs will make the proportion of female participation in sports become smaller. it can not be regarded as “program expansion”for women. So Mason University will not satisfy prong two. As to prong three, we can not find “fully and effectively accommodated the interest and ability of the under-represented sex”to the extent necessary to provide equal oppotunity in the selection of sports and levels of competition available to members of both sexes. So, Proposed Budget No.2 is a violation of Title IX.
Proposed Budget No.3:
As the statistics shown by The Board, the proportion of female participants in sports is becoming larger and larger from 20% in 2010-2011 to 30% in 2014-2015. eliminating six men’s “nonrevenue”programs but cut no women’s programs at all (approximately 120 male participants are cut and no female participants are cut in Proposed Budget No.3), which will make the proportion of male participants become smaller and the proportionof female participants become larger. It is “a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex.”So Proposed Budget No.3 satisfy prong two in 1978 OCR Policy Interpretation and is legitimate.
C.
No, the male swimmers are not able to obtain preliminary injunction against its implement.A central aspect of Title IX’s purpose is to encourage women to participate in sports. In Neal V. Board of Trustees of the California State Universities, 198 F.3d 763 (9th Cir .1999), The court said “Every court, in construing the Policy Interpretation and the text of Title IX, has held that a university may bring itself into Title IX compliance by increasing athletic oppotunities for the underrepresented gender or by decreasing athletic oppotunities for the overrepresented gender…boosters of male sports argued vociferously before Congress that the proposed regulations would require schools to shift resources from men’s programs to women’s programs, but that Congress nevertheless sided with women’s advocates by deciding not to repeal the HEW’s athletics-related Title IX regulations. Congress thus appears to have believed that Title IX would result in funding reductions to male athletic programs. If a university wishes to comply with Title IX by leveling down programs instead of ratcheting them up, Title IX is not offended…”(Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 172) In this case, eliminating six existing men’s “nonrevenue”programs but cutting no women’s programs is an effort to comply with Title IX and is not a violation of Title IX. So the male swimmers are not able to obtain preliminary injunction against its implement.
D．As we know, varsity status always means the participants are allowed to represent the school. If the women’s crewing and lacrosse team want to upgrade to varsity, there is no violation in this conduct. If they are upgraded to varsity status, they will meet a higher level of competition and they should always keep good faith because they represent their school. These demands will make the Budget creat more oppotunities for women and the proportion of women in sports participants will become larger and meet the purpose of Title IX that seek more oppotunities for women in sports participation.
Question 2
If the coach didn’t allow Leslie to participate in his team based on her gender, believing that “it would not be safe for a girl to play a contact sport with boys”,it was a violation of equal protection. Under equal protection, if a distinction is based on gender, it will receive intermediate scrutiny. In Mississippi University For Women V. Hogan, 458 U.S., 102 S. Ct. 3331. 73 L.Ed. 2d 1090 (1982), the court said that “if the objective is to exclude or protect members of one gender because they are presumed to suffer from an inherent handicap or to be innately inferior, the objective itself is illegitimate”(Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 154)In our case, Leslie was an excellent player since she was young, There was an insufficient relationship between coach’s announced goal of safety and a rule which exclude Leslie from competing with males for a place on the team. She should have a chance to try. Finally, after a meeting, the coach agreed her to participate in the team. So equal protection is not offended.
Tim Tobo speared Leslie’s back in a drill, with the specific instruction to “make sure she goes down”. The fact is after Leslie passed the ball, there was no need for Tim Tobo to spear her. As a best defenders and a senior, he should know the risk for his conduct. We can get a conclusion that he was intentional to spear Leslie and his conduct is reckless. So he should be considered to be guilty.
Football is a contact sport. There exists some possibilities to get injured in the game. Leslie’s getting injured is not a result of her gender. Everyone in football matches is possible to get injured. It is a part of football. There is no substantial relationship between her getting injured and the coach’s decision to exclude her from his team. It is a violation of equal protection.
The school refused to start a men’s tennis program because they wanted to offset the number of men who played sports at that school is not a violation of Title IX. In the case Neal V. Board of Trustees of the California State Universities 198 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 1999), the court said “if a universitywishes to comply with Title IX by leveling down programs instead of ratcheting them up, Title IX is not offended.” (Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 172) So, school’s conduct here is legitimate.
Brice wanted to play on woman’s team. However, it is clear that men always have physical advantages with women in contact sports such as football. Allowing him to play on woman’s team is unfair to these woman’s team who don’t have men on the team.
School administration began locker and backpack searches because they Believed that the school was “at the centre of the drug epidemic”. In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton 515 U.S. 646(1995), the court said that “state-compelled collection and testing of urine, such as that requiredby the Policy, constitutes a search subject to the demands of the Fourth Amendment.”(Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 42) If a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence or criminal wrongdoing, the court always said it is reasonable. In this case, the school did random searches to find whether someone had drugs, it is reasonable.
Actually, random drug testing for participants in UHSAA is not a violation of their privacy. “students within the school environment have a lesser expection of privacy than members of the population generally…Legitimate privacy expections are even less with regard to student athletes…Students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy.”(Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 42) The school wanted to do a test here look only for drugs. If the school had somemeasures for example the result are disclosed only to a limited classof school personnel who have a need to know, it is not a violation ofprivacy.
Leslie failed the drug test because she need to take pain medicine. However, it is still not allowed by UHSAA. “the need for some medicine” is not a sufficient reason for her to take medicine that not allowed by UHSAA. She should be given some penalties.
Question 3
If a agent want to represent a player, he must register with NFLPA. In this case, Derwin is a registered agent with the NFLPA and in all 50 states. However, there is no contract between Derwin and Brice. Brice is not a Client of Derwin and there is no contractual relationship between them. Derwim doesnot represent Brice and Brice represent himself. Brice had a employment near the Mason campus. He would be featured on a local television commercial and get paid. He did not tell the school and his coach about this. Mason University in Maryland is a state actor and is a member of NCAA. NCAA rules restricting student-athlete endorsement and media activities. In Bloom v. NCAA 93 P.3d 621 (Colo, App. 2004), the court believed that Bloom’s entertainment activity was obtained because of his athletic performance and impinged upon the amateur deal. In our case, we can easily to understand that Brice’s television commercial and his higher compensation is the result of his athletic performance and is a violation of NCAA rules if he didn’t tell the school and his coach about this.
When Brice and Derwin signed a representation agreement, they posted date the contract till after his junior year was over. They didn’t tell the coach or the school. It is a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In United States v. Bloom, 997 F.2d 1219 (7th Cir. 1993); 913 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1990), the court found Lloyd Bloom postdated the agreements between him and his clients.In our case, Brice and Derwin also violation RICO and their couduct was illegitimate.
Leslie found the class load really difficult for her. Derwim suggested her to turn pro and she should file a lawsuit against the school for it’s negligent education. In Ross v. Creighton Universiy 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir.1992), the court said “ to state a claim fo breach of contract, the plaintiff must do more than simply allege that education was not good enough.Instead, he must point to an identifiable contractual promise that the defendant failed to honor…if the defendant took tuition money and the provided no education, or promised a set number of hours of instruction and then failed to deliver, a breach of contract action may be available.” (Sports Law Governance and Regulation, Wolters Kluwer, 107) In our case, the coaches promised her that he would offer tutoring to her, which is one of the reason she chose Mason. However, because financial difficulties, the school failed to deliver the tutoring she need to her. Leslie used her own prize to pay a private tutor but still failed in her academic performance. The school’ conduct is a kind of breach of contract here.