United States Sixth Circuit

On remand from the Supreme Court of a class action suit against a state high school athletic association claiming that defendant's scheduling of sports seasons discriminated against female athletes on the basis of gender: 1) Title IX does not preclude relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; 2) grant of relief to plaintiff on an equal protection claim was proper since defendant failed to satisfy its burden of justifying its discriminatory scheduling practices; 3) proof of a discriminatory motive is not required for a Title IX claim based upon disparate treatment, thus a judgment finding that defendant was in violation of Title IX was proper; 4) defendant was in violation of a state civil rights law; and 5) there was no error in a judge's refusal to recuse himself.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/16/2006
• Published 08/16/2006

Judges

• Before:  KENNEDY, COLE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Maureen E. Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.  Kristen Galles, Equity Legal, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Maureen E. Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.  Kristen Galles, Equity Legal, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.  Brad A. Banasik, Michigan Association of School Boards, Lansing, Michigan, Jonathan E. Lauderbach, Currie Kendall, Midland, Michigan, for Amici Curiae.