NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus About Sports, Equity, and Math

January 13, 2023

UPDATE - January 13, 2023 -- The parties reached  a settlement agreement that prohibits Michigan State University ("MSU") from cutting any women’s team from now until the end of the 2029-30 school year. The agreement also requires MSU’s athletic program to come into full Title IX compliance by the end of the 2026-27 school year, including by requiring the appointment of an independent Gender Equity Review Director and the creation of a Gender Equity Plan.


Read more on the NWLC Blog.


UPDATE - February 1, 2022: The Sixth Circuit ordered the lower court to reconsider Sophia and her swim and diving teammates’ request to stop MSU from cutting their team, consistent with the following corrections: First, there is no “magic number” for Title IX athletics compliance, and the lower court should not have assumed MSU was compliant with Title IX just because its athletics participation gap was less than 2%. Second, the lower court should have compared MSU’s participation gap to the size of a viable team, not the size of the average team at MSU. Third, the lower court should have accepted Sophia and her teammates’ calculations of MSU’s large participation gap based on MSU’s own reported, publicly available data. This decision is a great win because it provides important clarifications on what standards courts must apply when evaluating whether a school’s athletics program is compliant with Title IX.


May 26, 2021 -- NAWL joined the NWLC, along with co-counsel Legal Aid At Work and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and a group of 20+ other civil rights organizations in a Sixth Circuit amicus brief about sports and equity and math, oh my! In Balow v. Michigan State University, we filed in support of Sophia Balow and her varsity swim and diving teammates, who want to stop MSU from cutting their team.


Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in school sports. One way for schools to comply with Title IX is to ensure the total number of spots on all sports teams for each gender is proportionate to each gender’s enrollment. If these numbers aren’t proportionate, the school has a “participation gap” and must see if there are any “viable teams” that can close that gap. A school has a “viable team” in a specific sport if enough students want to join that team and there are other schools to compete with. Under Title IX, schools must compare their “participation gap” with the sizes of any “viable teams” to make decisions about adding or cutting teams.


For example, let’s say women are 60% of students at a school and have 40 of 70 total athletic spots. If the school were to cut the women’s softball team, which has 10 people, women would have only 30 of 60 spots (50%). To close the 10% participation gap, the school would need to add 15 more women’s spots so that women have 45 of 75 spots (60%). Since this gap of 15 is larger than the current softball team of 10, the school can’t cut the softball team. Alternatively, the school would need to add a viable team in another sport to close the gap.


MSU already had a participation gap of 42 (according to data from its own website) and was spending three times more on men’s sports than on women’s sports when it announced its plans to cut the women’s varsity swim and diving team. Sophia and her teammates asked a district court in Michigan to stop MSU from cutting their team, but the court made several critical mistakes and, as a result, denied their request. Our amicus brief to the Sixth Circuit explains the district court’s mistakes.


First, the district court arbitrarily decided that MSU complies with Title IX solely because the court calculated MSU’s participation gap to be less than 2%, even though the Department of Education and many other courts have repeatedly said there is no such “magic number” under Title IX. As the Department has explained, a large school with a 5% gap would need to add more women’s spots than a small school with the same 5% gap. If the district court’s 2% rule is not overturned, large schools like MSU will be able to deprive many women of athletics opportunities.


Second, the district court incorrectly compared MSU’s participation gap with the average size of all women’s sports teams at MSU, instead of with specific sports teams, like the women’s swim and diving team. The average size of all women’s teams at MSU is simply irrelevant to whether Title IX allows MSU to cut a specific team or requires MSU to add a specific team. If the district court’s decision is not overturned, an absurd situation will be allowed: a school will be able to cut its smallest girls’ or women’s teams in order to inflate its average team size, which will allow it to have an ever-larger participation gap. This will make it exceedingly difficult for women and girls to prove that their school is violating Title IX—even when they have far fewer spots to play than men and boys.


Finally, the district court unfairly rejected Sophia and her teammates’ calculations of MSU’s large participation gap based on MSU’s self-reported, publicly available data. Instead, the court accepted MSU’s claims that its participation gap was too low to require adding any new women’s teams—even though MSU never turned over the underlying data for those claims. If this approach is not overturned, school athletics programs will be incentivized to violate Title IX and, if they are sued, they will be rewarded for hiding the evidence from courts and plaintiffs.


We’re fighting for Sophia and her teammates because they—and all women and girls—deserve to have equal opportunities to play sports. MSU’s Title IX violations are egregious but not unique. The national participation gap is almost 1 million for high school girls and 60,000 for college women, and girls of color are doubly disadvantaged. Women and girls face second-class treatment and pervasive sexual abuse in school sports, including, infamously, at MSU. As states continue to pass cruel athletics bans against transgender girls and women, it’s especially critical that we uplift the many real and urgent problems that keep women and girls from achieving gender equity in athletics.


April 2, 2025
Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic
March 26, 2025
Bar Organizations’ Statement in Support of the Rule of Law CHICAGO, March 26, 2025 — We the undersigned bar organizations stand together with and in support of the American Bar Association to defend the rule of law and reject efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession. In particular, as outlined by the ABA: We endorse the sentiments expressed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, “[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” We support the right of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice in this manner. We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard and seen must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession. There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. If lawyers do not speak, who will speak for our judges? Who will protect our bedrock of justice? If we do not speak now, when will we speak? Now is the time. That is why we stand together with the ABA in support of the rule of law. American Bar Association Alameda County (California) Bar Association Alexandria (Virginia) Bar Association Allegheny County Bar Association (Pennsylvania) Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers Bar Association of Erie County (New York) Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis Berks County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association Boston Bar Association Boulder County (Colorado) Bar Association Chicago Bar Association Chicago Council of Lawyers Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association Columbus (Ohio) Bar Association Connecticut Bar Association Contra Costa (California) County Bar Association Detroit Bar Association and Foundation Erie County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association First Judicial District Bar Association (Colorado) Hennepin County (Minnesota) Bar Association Hispanic National Bar Association Hudson County (New Jersey) Bar Association Illinois State Bar Association Kansas Bar Association Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Foundation Lawyers Club of San Diego Long Beach (California) Bar Association Louisville Bar Association Maine State Bar Association Middlesex County (New Jersey) Bar Association Milwaukee Bar Association Minnesota State Bar Association Monroe County (New York) Bar Association Nassau County (New York) Bar Association National Asian Pacific American Bar Association National Association of Women Lawyers National Conference of Bar Presidents National LGBTQ+ Bar Association National Native American Bar Association New Jersey Women Lawyers Association New Mexico Black Lawyers Association New York City Bar Association New York County Lawyers Association North County (California) Bar Association Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar Passaic County (New Jersey) Bar Association Philadelphia Bar Association Queens County (New York) Bar Association Ramsey County (Minnesota) Bar Association San Diego County Bar Association San Fernando Valley (California) Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association (California) South Asian Bar Association of North America State Bar of New Mexico Virgin Islands Bar Association Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association Worcester County (Massachusetts) Bar Association
A group of women hold a banner that reads
January 17, 2025
January 17, 2025 The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) applauds President Biden's declaration recognizing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as "the law of the land," which represents a victory for the countless advocates who have tirelessly championed gender equality. NAWL has been a steadfast supporter of ratification of the ERA since it was first introduced and was one of the first national organizations to endorse it. NAWL was present for its first reading at the National Women’s Conference in 1923 and subsequently printed the proposed Amendment in the Women Lawyers Journal that same year. When Congress finally passed the amendment in 1972, the campaign for ratification by the states became NAWL’s major project for the following decade. In 2020, NAWL issued its Resolution in Support of the Ratification of the ERA to the United States Constitution, committing to continue its advocacy. For over a century, the ERA has symbolized the fight for gender equality. As NAWL member Marguerite Rawalt poignantly noted in the Women Lawyers Journal in 1971, “Equal justice does not exist for women under the Constitution as interpreted to date. They are the one remaining ‘class’ and category not yet adjudged to come under the legal umbrella of the Constitution.” We will continue to work to fulfill the promise of equal justice for all citizens, regardless of sex and gender status.
More Posts