## Facts

- John Williams, a 14-year-old ninth grader at Liberty High School in the Bethlehem School District, tried out for the school’s girls’ field hockey team in 1990.
- Liberty High School did not offer a boys’ field hockey team; John previously played intramural coed field hockey in middle school.
- After tryouts, the coach made tentative placements based on ability; John was described as an average player who likely would have played goalie on junior varsity.
- School officials later directed that John and another boy, who had been issued uniforms, could not play on the girls’ team.
- John’s parents sued seeking injunctive relief, fees, and costs, alleging violations of Title IX and its athletics regulation, the U.S. Constitution (via § 1983), and the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.
- During the litigation, the parties agreed John could practice with the girls’ team for the 1991 season but could not play in interscholastic games.

## Issues

1. Whether field hockey can qualify as a “contact sport” under 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b), permitting a school to limit participation to one sex.
2. Whether Title IX permits excluding a boy from a girls’ team where selection is by competitive skill, in light of (a) the contact-sport exception and (b) whether athletic opportunities for the excluded sex have been “previously limited” in the overall program.
3. Whether excluding a boy from the girls’ field hockey team violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment on the record presented.
4. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction for the plaintiffs.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs and vacated the permanent injunction.
- The court remanded for further proceedings because genuine disputes of material fact precluded judgment as a matter of law.
- The court held the record did not permit a categorical legal determination that field hockey is not a “contact sport” for Title IX regulation purposes.
- The court held the record was insufficient to resolve whether boys’ athletic opportunities in the school’s overall program had been “previously limited,” a fact relevant to Title IX’s treatment of sex-separated teams.
- The court also held that factual development was necessary before resolving the Equal Protection and Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment claims.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where material facts are genuinely disputed, including disputes central to how a governing regulation applies to the activity at issue.
- Under 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b), schools may operate sex-separated teams where selection is based on competitive skill or where the sport is a “contact sport,” and Title IX analysis may require evaluation of overall athletic opportunities by sex.
- Whether a sport is a “contact sport” under the Title IX athletics regulation may depend on evidence of how the sport is actually played, including the frequency and nature of bodily contact.
- Assessing whether athletic opportunities for one sex have been “previously limited” requires examining the overall athletic program and actual participation opportunities, not merely the formal ability of one sex to try out for teams designated for the other.
- Sex-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause require heightened scrutiny; whether exclusion is substantially related to important objectives (e.g., preserving opportunities for female athletes or safety concerns) may require fact-specific proof.
- The Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment claim likewise may turn on factual determinations concerning justification for sex-based athletic participation rules.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that disputes about whether field hockey is a contact sport and whether boys’ athletic opportunities were previously limited made it error to grant summary judgment and permanently enjoin the school district from excluding John Williams from the girls’ team; the case was remanded for further factual development under Title IX, equal protection, and the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.


Williams v. Sch. Dist. of Bethlehem, 998 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1993)