Biediger v. Quinnipiac University

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Title IX was violated when 3.62% variance in women's athletic participation was considered along with other factors
• noting that even if the agency’s interpretation were not entitled to Auer deference, the court would still afford it substantial deference under Skidmore
• concluding that the 1996 Clarification is controlling
• counting only “the number of genuine varsity athletic participation opportunities” when assessing substantial proportionality under prong one
• affirming entry of permanent injunction against QU after the University was found in a bench trial to have violated Title IX by failing to afford equal participation opportunities in varsity sports to female students
• upholding injunction where there was a “3.62% disparity” or 38 participation opportunities

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).