Fawcett et al v. Willamette University

Filing 45

Order: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 is denied. Signed on 9/8/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CARLI FAWCETT, NATALIE BRANCH,
CARRIE MOORE, ELSPETH KATHRINE
ELIZABETH CHARNO, MIRANDA
MARTIN, LAURA POLKINGHORN,
KYRA FARR, ANNIE JOLLIFF,
CLARA SIMS, ALLISON DAVIES, JULIA
DI SIMONE, and HANNAH PUCKETT,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 6:16-cv-01594-MC
ORDER DENYING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.
WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

MCSHANE, Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(ECF No. 2) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. For the reasons stated on the record during oral
arguments on the Motion on September 7, 2016, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion.
On August 23, 2016, this Court held a hearing on the initially filed Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. This Court then issued an Opinion and
Order denying the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on August 24, 2016. ECF No. 28. In
that Opinion, the Court laid out the facts as presented in support of, and in response to, that
motion. ECF No. 29 at 2-4. The Court also addressed the standards governing motions for
temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, and briefly assessed the merits of this

Page 1 - ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

case. Id. 4-6. After denying the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, the Court ordered the
parties to conduct expedited discovery. The Court invited the parties to put on testimony
regarding the facts giving rise to Defendant Willamette University's choice to disband the
women's rowing team, and whether viable alternative facilities were or are available to support
the team.
After hearing testimony from a number of witnesses and the arguments of counsel
regarding the positions of the parties, the Court found that the facts did not clearly favor
Plaintiffs' request for a mandatory preliminary injunction reinstating the team, ordering
Willamette to temporarily engage with third-parties to support the team, ordering Willamette to
find and secure new facilities when there is no certainty that viable facilities are currently
available or in existence, and ordering Willamette to reinstate a coaching staff. While Plaintiffs
are likely to succeed on the merits regarding Title IX compliance, the balance of hardships do
not tip in the rowing team's favor. It is not the court's role to manage Willamette's decisions that
were based on legitimate safety concerns associated with proposed off-site facilities. The
University proffered good faith reasons to decommission the team's boathouse due to the
changing currents of the Willamette River and they had bona fide safety concerns regarding the
river currents and transportation issues associated with other potential sites.
In accordance with the above as well as the Court's factual findings at oral argument,
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this _1_ day of September, 2016.
\"""

___

Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge
Page 2- ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION