## Facts

- Communities for Equity and parents of female student-athletes sued the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) on behalf of a class of present and future female students in MHSAA member schools who participate, or are deterred from participating, in interscholastic athletics.
- MHSAA is a statewide association that sets athletic seasons and tournament schedules, establishes eligibility rules, and enforces those rules for Michigan high school sports.
- The litigation ultimately focused on MHSAA’s scheduling of several girls’ sports in nontraditional and allegedly less advantageous seasons compared to boys’ sports, including girls’ volleyball (winter), basketball (fall), soccer (spring), and certain other sports.
- Plaintiffs alleged that off-season scheduling harmed girls by limiting recruiting exposure and scholarship opportunities, reducing access to elite and club competition, creating sport conflicts, decreasing media and community attention, and worsening playing and training conditions.
- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against MHSAA’s systemwide scheduling practices.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the scheduling practices unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and ordered injunctive relief realigning seasons.
- MHSAA appealed; the Sixth Circuit addressed state action and Equal Protection and did not reach Title IX or state-law grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(2) for certification of an injunctive-relief class challenging systemwide athletic scheduling practices.
2. Whether MHSAA’s regulation and scheduling of interscholastic athletics constitutes state action subject to the Equal Protection Clause.
3. Whether scheduling girls’ sports in nontraditional and less advantageous seasons is a sex-based classification that fails intermediate scrutiny for lack of an exceedingly persuasive justification.
4. Whether affirmance on Equal Protection grounds makes it unnecessary to decide Title IX and state-law claims.

## Decision

- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class, finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied for a statewide challenge to uniform practices and classwide injunctive relief.
- The Sixth Circuit held MHSAA’s conduct was state action because of pervasive entwinement with public schools, making its scheduling decisions attributable to the state.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment that MHSAA’s sex-based scheduling practices violated the Equal Protection Clause under intermediate scrutiny.
- The Sixth Circuit concluded MHSAA did not provide an exceedingly persuasive justification; administrative convenience, tradition, or generalized participation rationales did not suffice given the established harms and the availability of less discriminatory alternatives.
- Having affirmed on constitutional grounds, the Sixth Circuit declined to address the district court’s alternative holdings under Title IX and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

## Legal Principles

- Class certification requires a rigorous analysis of Rule 23; civil-rights claims are not exempt from proving numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate when a defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class and the primary relief sought is injunctive or declaratory relief directed to systemwide practices.
- A nominally private statewide athletic association may be a state actor for § 1983 and Equal Protection purposes when public schools and officials are pervasively entwined in its structure and operations.
- Sex-based classifications in educational athletics trigger intermediate scrutiny and require an exceedingly persuasive justification; tradition or administrative ease, without substantial relation to an important objective, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The courts treated MHSAA’s statewide scheduling policies as classwide conduct suitable for Rule 23(b)(2) relief, and the Sixth Circuit held that MHSAA acted under color of state law and that scheduling girls’ sports in nontraditional, disadvantageous seasons constituted sex discrimination that failed intermediate scrutiny, affirming injunctive relief on Equal Protection grounds.


Communities for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 377 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2004)