## Facts

- New York administered the Empire State Scholarships of Excellence and Regents Scholarships as state-funded merit awards.
- Eligibility for both scholarships was determined solely by SAT scores, without considering high-school grades, class rank, or other academic indicators.
- Ten female New York high-school students (and two nonprofit organizations) sued the New York State Education Department and the Commissioner of Education in his official capacity.
- Plaintiffs alleged that exclusive reliance on the SAT disproportionately disadvantaged female students because, as a group, females scored lower on the SAT than males while often earning higher grades and performing better academically.
- Plaintiffs sought class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief under Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment (via § 1983).
- The case came before the district court on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to stop SAT-only awards for the imminent scholarship cycle.

## Issues

1. Whether Title IX permits plaintiffs to establish unlawful sex discrimination through proof of disparate impact, without proof of discriminatory intent, for a facially neutral scholarship criterion.
2. Whether exclusive reliance on SAT scores to award state merit scholarships likely violates the Equal Protection Clause by unjustifiably disadvantaging female students.
3. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including irreparable harm and likelihood of success (or serious questions and a favorable balance of hardships).

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction.
- The court found plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on their Title IX claim based on statistical evidence of sex-based disparate impact from the SAT-only rule.
- The court concluded Title IX liability could be shown through unjustified disparate impact without proving discriminatory intent.
- The court found plaintiffs also demonstrated a likelihood of success on their equal protection claim under heightened scrutiny principles.
- The court held plaintiffs faced irreparable harm because scholarship decisions were imminent and lost educational opportunities could not be adequately remedied after the fact.
- The court enjoined defendants from awarding the scholarships solely on the basis of SAT scores and required development of non-discriminatory criteria pending final resolution.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in covered education programs and may be violated by a facially neutral policy that has an unjustified discriminatory effect on the basis of sex.
- Under disparate-impact analysis, plaintiffs may rely on statistical evidence to show discriminatory effect; intent to discriminate is not required for such a showing under Title IX as applied by the court.
- After a substantial disparate impact is shown, the defendant must justify the challenged practice as sufficiently related to legitimate program objectives and show that less discriminatory alternatives would not serve those objectives as well.
- Sex-based disparities triggering constitutional review require an important governmental objective and means substantially related to that objective; weak fit and available alternatives weigh against constitutionality.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires irreparable harm and either likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions plus a balance of hardships favoring the movant.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily barred New York from using SAT scores as the sole criterion for awarding two major state merit scholarships, holding plaintiffs were likely to prove that the policy’s sex-based disparate impact violated Title IX and that the same evidence supported an equal protection violation, with irreparable harm warranting immediate relief.


Sharif v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't, 709 F. Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)