## Facts

- Former female club athletes at Syracuse University (mostly club lacrosse; one club softball) sued Syracuse University, its Chancellor, and its Athletic Director under Title IX.
- Plaintiffs alleged discrimination in (1) participation opportunities (failure to offer sufficient women’s varsity opportunities, focusing on women’s varsity lacrosse and softball) and (2) unequal benefits and scholarship funding for varsity female athletes compared to varsity male athletes.
- At filing, Syracuse sponsored more men’s than women’s varsity teams and later announced changes, including adding women’s varsity lacrosse and planning women’s varsity softball.
- During the litigation, Syracuse implemented women’s varsity lacrosse; the named plaintiffs graduated.
- Plaintiffs primarily sought declaratory and injunctive relief; they sought to add damages only late in the case.

## Issues

1. Whether club athletes had Article III standing to assert Title IX equal-treatment and scholarship claims based on alleged disparities affecting varsity athletes.
2. Whether the accommodation claim seeking women’s varsity lacrosse became moot after Syracuse added varsity lacrosse and the named plaintiffs graduated.
3. Whether the district court erred by using class certification to support a club-sports equal-treatment theory not fairly pleaded, and by structuring the class in a manner that did not address conflicts between lacrosse and softball athletes.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on the accommodation claim under the “history and continuing practice of program expansion” theory, particularly as to women’s varsity softball that had not yet begun.

## Decision

- Affirmed dismissal of the equal-treatment and scholarship claims for lack of standing because the named plaintiffs were not varsity athletes and alleged no personal injury from varsity benefit and scholarship disparities.
- Dismissed as moot the appeal concerning women’s varsity lacrosse accommodation because Syracuse had created the team and the named plaintiffs had graduated, and the late, undeveloped damages theory did not preserve a live controversy.
- Vacated the class-certification order and the district court’s treatment of a club-level equal-treatment theory because class certification cannot expand the case beyond claims fairly alleged in the complaint.
- Vacated summary judgment and remanded as to women’s varsity softball accommodation for further proceedings, concluding the softball issue remained live and required additional analysis and factual development.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX plaintiffs must show an injury-in-fact; non-varsity (club) athletes generally lack standing to challenge unequal treatment or scholarship allocations directed at varsity athletes.
- Student requests for prospective relief can become moot upon graduation unless a properly structured class action preserves a live controversy or damages are timely and properly pursued.
- Class certification cannot be used to create or bootstrap claims not pleaded; the class device must track the substantive claims and manage intra-class conflicts through appropriate structuring (including subclasses when needed).
- For Title IX athletics accommodation claims, a school’s asserted “history and continuing practice of program expansion” may bear on compliance, but unresolved, unimplemented opportunities (such as a planned varsity team) may require further factual inquiry before summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld dismissal of varsity equal-treatment and scholarship claims for lack of standing, dismissed the lacrosse accommodation appeal as moot after team creation and plaintiffs’ graduation, vacated an overbroad class-certification approach that introduced unpleaded club-sport theories, and remanded the still-live question whether Syracuse adequately accommodated women’s interests and abilities as to varsity softball.


Boucher v. Syracuse Univ., 164 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1999)