## Facts

- Florida Institute of Technology, Inc. (FIT) is a private university that receives federal financial assistance and sponsors intercollegiate athletics.
- FIT eliminated men’s varsity rowing and four other varsity sports, announcing that the affected programs would be transitioned to club-level programs.
- Joshua Navarro and other former members of FIT’s eliminated men’s rowing program filed a putative class action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated current and future male undergraduate students, alleging Title IX violations in athletics.
- The rowers presented evidence that men comprised about 71% of FIT’s undergraduate enrollment but only about 64% of FIT’s varsity athletes, which they claimed reflected unequal athletic participation opportunities.
- The rowers argued that FIT was already out of compliance with Title IX’s equal-participation requirements and therefore could not lawfully reduce athletic opportunities for men by cutting men’s rowing.
- FIT responded that the participation gap would be de minimis if FIT’s esports participants and online students were included in the relevant participation and enrollment calculations.
- The rowers disputed counting esports participants as varsity athletes, pointing to evidence that FIT esports participants were not recruited off campus, esports lacked a uniform set of rules across games, and esports lacked a progressive playoff structure comparable to other college sports.
- The rowers moved for a preliminary injunction requiring FIT to reinstate men’s rowing as a varsity sport while the litigation proceeded, and the court held an evidentiary hearing on the request.

## Issues

1. Whether the rowers showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Title IX claim that FIT failed to provide equal athletic participation opportunities.
2. Whether the rowers showed irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief, given the loss of varsity-level competition and related opportunities.
3. Whether the balance of harms favored ordering temporary reinstatement of men’s varsity rowing pending final resolution of the case.
4. Whether granting the injunction served the public interest in enforcing federal nondiscrimination law in federally funded education programs.

## Decision

- The court granted the rowers’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court ordered FIT to reinstate men’s rowing as a varsity sport during the litigation.
- The court found the rowers made the required showing on likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest.
- In assessing likely success, the court credited evidence of a meaningful disparity between male undergraduate enrollment and male varsity athletic participation and was unpersuaded by FIT’s attempt to eliminate the gap through disputed counting methods (including esports and online-student adjustments).

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires the movant to show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the injunction, (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the harm the injunction would cause the opposing party, and (4) that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
- Title IX provides that no person, on the basis of sex, shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under an education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
- In athletics, equal participation opportunity claims are commonly evaluated using the Department of Education’s three-part framework, including whether participation opportunities are substantially proportionate to undergraduate enrollment.
- When a school attempts to satisfy proportionality through participant counts, a court may examine whether activities counted as “varsity” athletics function as intercollegiate sports in a way comparable to other varsity programs.
- The loss of time-limited opportunities to compete in intercollegiate varsity athletics—along with associated benefits such as coaching, competition schedules, and exposure—can constitute irreparable harm not readily remedied by later monetary relief.
- Enforcing Title IX’s nondiscrimination requirements in federally funded education programs generally favors a finding that injunctive relief serves the public interest.

## Conclusion

In *Joshua Navarro v. Florida Institute of Technology*, the district court granted preliminary injunctive relief requiring FIT to reinstate men’s varsity rowing, concluding that the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on a Title IX equal-participation claim based on a measurable disparity between male undergraduate enrollment and male varsity athletic participation and that the loss of varsity competition and related opportunities during the case would cause irreparable harm, with the balance of harms and the public interest favoring temporary reinstatement.


Joshua Navarro v. Florida Institute of Technology, No. 6:22-cv-1950-CEM-EJK (2023)