Quinnipiac University Faces Title IX Lawsuit Over Women’s Rugby Program

On April 14, 2026, Quinnipiac University announced it would demote its women’s Division I rugby team to club status following the 2025-26 academic year, while also announcing plans to revive the men’s track and field program, which had been eliminated in 2009. In response, 23 current and prospective women’s rugby players filed a class-action lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX (Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac University, No. 3:26-cv-00898, (D. Conn.)). The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction, alleging that Quinnipiac’s decision is part of a “longstanding pattern of retaliatory and discriminatory conduct.”

This is not Quinnipiac’s first legal challenge over Title IX compliance. Seventeen years ago, the university’s 2009 decision to eliminate women’s volleyball led to a class-action suit, Biediger v. Quinnipiac, 728 F. Supp. 2d 62 (2010). As part of the 2013 settlement in that case, Quinnipiac entered into a consent decree requiring the retention of volleyball and prohibiting the elimination of other women’s teams without replacing them with women’s teams that offered comparable participation opportunities at the varsity level.

Quinnipiac, which has roughly twice as many female teams as male teams competing at the championship level, explained that its decision to demote women’s rugby and expand men’s programs resulted from a strategic realignment following the House v. NCAA decision, and was aimed at ensuring its compliance with Title IX. The plaintiffs in House were student-athletes who challenged NCAA restrictions on their ability to earn money for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) under federal antitrust law. These claims were ultimately resolved as part of a landmark settlement in June 2025, which loosened NIL restrictions and established a revenue-sharing framework between schools and athletes.

The plaintiffs in Perez allege that Quinnipiac has engaged in unequal treatment, with women’s teams carrying more athletes but receiving fewer resources, while men’s teams, with fewer athletes, continue to enjoy equal or increased benefits. The complaint further alleges that the decision to demote the rugby team from varsity status fails to provide a meaningful alternative to the affected athletes and also constitutes impermissible retaliation against head coach Becky Carlson, who has openly criticized the treatment of women’s sports at Quinnipiac. 

Lastly, the plaintiffs allege sex discrimination in violation of Title IX, asserting that Quinnipiac’s post-House decisions, such as NIL restructuring and budget reallocations, disproportionately burden women’s sports. The complaint asserts that these actions violate Title IX by denying women equal access to varsity benefits, NIL opportunities, and institutional support. In seeking an injunction from the court, the plaintiffs emphasize that, although the post-House landscape broadens the scope of resources that must be shared equitably, Quinnipiac’s actions effectively discriminate against women by reducing their athletic opportunities and benefits while favoring male athletes.

While Quinnipiac’s women’s rugby players are among the first to challenge a school’s application of the House settlement under Title IX, the settlement itself has likewise been challenged on Title IX grounds. Specifically, the portion of the House settlement agreement that establishes formulas for “backpay” owed to college athletes for use of their NIL and the current revenue-sharing model has been appealed and is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. The appellants argue that the settlement’s damages calculations violate Title IX by disproportionately benefiting male athletes, who would receive over 90% of the payout. They also contend that the injunctive relief, which allows schools to pay athletes up to 22% of shared revenue with a $20.5 million cap, favors male athletes and shifts financial burdens onto colleges. (Opening Brief of Menke Objectors, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2025)). 

As schools attempt to adjust to the altered landscape of college sports post-House, unresolved Title IX issues have not featured as prominently in public discussion as other topics, such as eligibility, player movement and tampering. That said, the Quinnipiac action and the pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit raise important questions regarding the potential impact of NIL policies, revenue-sharing models, and team and roster management on Title IX compliance.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.