Class Action Claims UConn’s Decision to Cut Women’s Rowing Team Amounts to Sex-Based Discrimination [UPDATE]
by Erin Shaak
Last Updated on June 23, 2021
Lazor et al. v. The University of Connecticut
Filed: April 28, 2021 ◆§ 3:21-cv-00583
A lawsuit claims the University of Connecticut’s decision to cut its women’s rowing team reflects a “pattern and practice of sex discrimination.”
Connecticut
Case Updates
June 22, 2021 – Court Grants Temporary Relief Barring UConn from Eliminating Women’s Rowing Team
The judge overseeing the case detailed on this page has granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order barring UConn from cutting the women’s rowing team until a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction can be conducted.
The May 26, 2021 order, found here, states that because the plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order and have demonstrated that there is “substantial likelihood of success” on their Title IX claim, temporary relief prohibiting the school from getting rid of the team is warranted.
U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill found that while the University of Connecticut has not described any harm it would sustain if it were temporarily barred from eliminating the women’s rowing team, the plaintiffs suffer harm with each passing day.
“By contrast, it is likely that nothing will be left of the women’s rowing team if I do not issue a temporary restraining order: more team members will transfer, coaches must secure positions elsewhere, and recruiting will not occur,” the judge wrote. “Each passing day, Plaintiffs are losing the opportunity to develop as student athletes.”
According to court documents, the temporary restraining order prohibits the University of Connecticut from eliminating its women’s varsity intercollegiate rowing team; involuntarily terminating the employment of the team’s coaches; reducing its financial, material or other support for the team; and restricting or delaying the team’s access to facilities, coaching, training or competitive opportunities.
While the order was set to expire after 14 days, the judge on June 9 granted the plaintiff’s motion to extend the temporary restraining order through the date of the decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction.
A proposed class action claims the University of Connecticut’s decision last year to cut its women’s rowing team for financial reasons is reflective of a “pattern and practice of sex discrimination” within the Division I school’s athletic department.
The 52-page case, filed by 12 members of the UConn women’s rowing team, alleges the university has engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex by providing male athletes with not only more opportunities to participate in varsity intercollegiate sports but also superior treatment, benefits and financial assistance in comparison to female athletes.
The lawsuit claims the Storrs, Connecticut school has violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and seeks a court order barring UConn from cutting its women’s rowing program.
The University of Connecticut is a member of the NCAA, and each of the school’s sports programs participate in Division I, the highest level of intercollegiate sports competition, the case explains. Over the last 13 years, however, the school has, according to the suit, denied female students equal participation in its varsity intercollegiate athletic programs, equal treatment and benefits, and financial assistance.
Compounding matters was the June 2020 announcement that UConn would be cutting the women’s rowing program, described in the complaint as “a viable female sport team, with a successful history and strong support,” in May 2021 as part of the athletic department’s plan to reduce its university subsidy by 25 percent by 2023, the case relays.
As the lawsuit tells it, the defendant’s reasons for cutting rowing are “pretextual to cover the discrimination.”
Though one reason offered for the decision to axe the women’s rowing program was that it is not a member of the Big East Conference, the case points out that the UConn men’s football and men’s and women’s ice hockey teams are also not Big East members yet are not being eliminated. Another reason—that the women’s rowing team is not as successful as other sports—“only underscores” the discrimination given UConn has not provided the team with the resources necessary to be as successful as programs that have been provided with more resources, according to the lawsuit.
The suit argues, however, that UConn women’s rowing has “a long list of accomplishments” in its competitions “despite its unequal treatment,” which the lawsuit alleges includes being provided with unequal facilities, fewer scholarships, and lower coaches’ salaries than those offered for men’s sports. Per the case, UConn’s athletic director has admitted that rowing was being cut because it would be too expensive to bring it into Title IX compliance.
The complaint highlights the fact that UConn’s decision to eliminate the women’s rowing program will cut 61 athletic opportunities and 14.83 athletic scholarships for women, and alleges the move was intended to “improve the competitiveness of its men’s sports programs at the expense of the women’s program.” Per the case, UConn has already engaged in discrimination against female students by offering them fewer athletic opportunities, and the elimination of the women’s rowing program “will make this discrimination worse.”
Eliminated alongside the UConn women’s rowing program were the school’s men’s cross country, men’s swimming and diving, and men’s tennis programs, the lawsuit says. Those cuts, however, stand only to widen the participation gap and further the disadvantage for female athletes’ programs, in part because there is a women’s counterpart to each male program that UConn has axed, the case alleges.
More specifically, UConn, in cutting the women’s rowing team, which has no male counterpart and therefore no staff for a men’s team, is eliminating one female head coach and three female assistant coaches’ jobs for women’s sports and for women, the lawsuit stresses. Conversely, UConn’s cutting of three men’s sports eliminates “at most, only one assistant coach position for men’s sports” because the men’s and women’s cross-country teams share the same staff, per the suit.
Further still, while the women’s rowing team’s facilities and resources will be “eviscerated,” the facilities used by the three men’s teams that were cut by UConn will still need to be provided and maintained given they are shared by the women’s cross country team, men’s and women’s track and field program, women’s swimming, and women’s tennis programs, the case says. All told, the UConn sports cuts, despite the fact that they affect male athletes to an extent, disproportionately harm women’s sports and female athletes and coaches at the university, according to the suit.
“These cuts therefore result in a much bigger cut and impact on women’s sports at UConn and less money being spent on women’s teams than men’s teams after the cuts, which magnifies the already unequal treatment and benefits provided to UConn’s female athletes in violation of Title IX,” the complaint states.
According to the suit, cutting the women’s rowing program “perpetuates the gender discrimination that already exists at UConn” and will widen the “already discriminatory gap” between men’s and women’s athletic opportunities.
The lawsuit looks for the court to order UConn to cease the alleged discrimination on the basis of sex; restrain the university from selling or disposing of rowing equipment, leasing the boathouse, and eliminating the women’s rowing program; and require the school to provide female students with equal opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics by sponsoring additional women’s varsity teams.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.