Emily Becker, Calli Forsberg, Morgan Stenseth, and Maya Tellmann sued the North Dakota University System in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, raising claims under Title IX. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Factual Overview
The University of North Dakota eliminated its women’s ice hockey team after the 2016-2017 season, despite the program’s success and popularity. Four female hockey players filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the University violated Title IX by eliminating the program. None of the plaintiffs were enrolled at the University at the time of filing. They sought a declaratory judgment that the school violated Title IX and an injunction requiring it to provide female athletes with comparable opportunities, including reinstating the women’s hockey program.
The plaintiffs also sought to represent a class of all current, prospective, and future female students affected by the decision. Two of the plaintiffs, Calli Forsberg and Maya Tellmann, had specific connections to the University and the hockey program. Forsberg was recruited to play for the team before its elimination, while Tellmann was accepted as a student but had no opportunity to play or try out due to the program’s elimination.
Legal Analysis
Standing
The court addressed the issue of standing for each of the four plaintiffs. The court found that two plaintiffs, Forsberg and Tellmann, had sufficiently alleged standing, while the other two, Becker and Stenseth, did not.
Forsberg and Tellmann: Standing
The court determined that Forsberg and Tellmann had adequately pleaded an ongoing injury sufficient for Article III standing. Their injury was the continuing denial of an opportunity to compete for the team of their choice. The court found their allegations of definite intent to attend the University if they could play hockey, combined with their qualifications and past connections to the school, were enough to establish standing at this stage of the proceedings.
The court distinguished this case from Grandson v. University of Minnesota, noting that unlike in Grandson, Forsberg and Tellmann still had remaining years of NCAA eligibility and could benefit from the declaratory and injunctive relief sought.
Becker and Stenseth: Lack of Standing
The court found that Becker and Stenseth did not allege sufficient facts to establish standing. Becker’s complaint lacked key information about her qualifications and acceptance to the University. Stenseth’s allegations were even more limited, failing to demonstrate any ongoing injury or intent to attend the University in the future.
Causation and Redressability
For Forsberg and Tellmann, the court found that the causation and redressability requirements for standing were easily met. The loss of opportunity to play hockey at the University was directly traceable to the decision to eliminate the program, and the requested relief could potentially lead to the program’s reinstatement.
The court reversed and remanded the case in part, allowing Forsberg and Tellmann’s claims to proceed, while affirming the dismissal of Becker and Stenseth’s claims for lack of standing.
Schrag on Law 