{"id":2985,"date":"2026-06-02T12:58:26","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T16:58:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2985"},"modified":"2026-06-02T13:23:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T17:23:44","slug":"oregon-federal-court-denies-class-certification-due-to-the-impact-of-unique-defenses-on-the-named-plaintiffs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/06\/02\/oregon-federal-court-denies-class-certification-due-to-the-impact-of-unique-defenses-on-the-named-plaintiffs\/","title":{"rendered":"Oregon Federal Court Denies Class Certification Due To The Impact Of Unique Defenses On The Named Plaintiffs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Katherine L. Alphonso, and Jamar D. Davis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/em><\/strong>On May 28, 2026, in Ashley Schroeder et al. v. University of Oregon, Case No. 6:23-CV-01806, 2026 WL 1494043 (D. Or. May 28, 2026), Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon – without deciding whether the University of Oregon adequately supports or invests in women athletics – reaffirmed<\/a> that the typicality requirement for class certification cannot be met when \u201cthere is a danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied\u201d with its own unique defenses. The ruling is a significant one for corporate counsel and provides a blueprint for defense of class action claims.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 2000s, particularly at the collegiate level and among Division 1 institutions in warm-weather conferences, beach volleyball was a rapidly growing sport.  Id.<\/em> at *2.  In 2009, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (\u201cNCAA\u201d), under its Emerging Sports for Women program, designated women’s beach volleyball an \u201cemerging sport\u201d for women.  Id.<\/em>  Notably, the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women program was designed to encourage schools to create more opportunities for women\u2019s athletic participation to meet the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 (\u201cTitle IX\u201d).  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a state educational institution, the University of Oregon (the \u201cUniversity\u201d) receives federal funds and is therefore subject to Title IX requirements.  Id.<\/em> at *1.  In 2013, the University\u2019s athletic department announced the addition of women\u2019s volleyball to its roster of varsity teams.  Id.<\/em> at *2.  Since its announcement, the University has worked to approve new beach volleyball facilities, provide locker rooms, make scholarships available for recruitment, and hire a new coach.  Id.<\/em>  It currently sponsors eight men’s varsity teams (baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, tennis, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field) and twelve women’s varsity teams (acrobatics and tumbling, basketball, beach volleyball, cross country, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball, tennis, indoor track and field, outdoor track and field, and (indoor) volleyball).  Id.<\/em> at *1.  The University also hosts forty-one club sports teams, including but not limited to rowing, which operate outside of the school’s athletic department and are generally student organized.  Id.<\/em> at *1-2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs \u2014 consisting of female student athletes attending the University, five of which are current or former members of the women\u2019s beach volley team (\u201cBeach Volleyball Plaintiffs\u201d) and four of which are current or former members of the women\u2019s club rowing team (\u201cRowing Plaintiffs\u201d) \u2014 filed a complaint alleging the University continues to violate Title IX by depriving its female student-athletes of equal treatment, equal access to athletic financial aid permissible under federal law, and equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics.  Id.<\/em> at *1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In pursuit of their claims, Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify the following classes: (1) Equal Treatment and Benefits Class defined as \u201call current and future female students who participate or will participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at [the University]\u201d; (2) Damages Class for the Equal Treatment and Benefits claim; (3) Equal Financial Aid Class defined as \u201call current and future female students who participate or will participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at [the University] and do not receive all athletic financial aid permissible under federal law\u201d; (4) Damages Class for the Equal Financial Aid claim; and (5) Effective Accommodation Class defined as \u201call present and future female students at [the University] who are being deprived of the opportunity to participate on women’s varsity intercollegiate athletic teams.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *3-4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The District Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge McShane denied class certification for four of the five requested classes, namely the Equal Treatment and Benefits Class, both Damages Classes, and the Effective Accommodation Class.  Id.<\/em> at *5-8.  The Court stayed its class certification consideration as to the Equal Financial Aid Class pending final disposition of the underlying claim on its merits.  Id.<\/em> at *4-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regards to the Equal Treatment and Benefits Class, the Court held Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)\u2019s typicality requirement ultimately prevented certification of the class.  Id.<\/em> at *6.  While factual variations between a named plaintiff and proposed class members do not per se defeat typicality, typicality cannot be met when \u201cthere is a danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *6 (internal citation omitted).   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, rather than discussing all purported class members, Plaintiffs focused almost exclusively on the unique experiences of the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs.  Id.<\/em>  For example, unlike most of the other women\u2019s varsity teams, the beach volleyball team practiced and competed off campus; until September 2025, the beach volleyball team was the only varsity team without its own locker room; and the beach volleyball team was the only varsity team without a dedicated full-time head coach who was not also coaching another team.  Id.<\/em>  Moreover, the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs \u201cwould need to address whether their participation in an \u2018emerging\u2019 varsity sport influences the merits of their Title IX claim.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  The Court expressed concern that addressing the unique experiences of the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs would steal the focus of the litigation, creating an impermissible danger to absent class members.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regards to the two Damages Classes, the Court held a class action is not a superior method to litigate Plaintiffs\u2019 damages claims because there are \u201ctoo many distinct individual determinations that frustrate [class action] manageability.  Id.<\/em> at *7; see<\/em> Fed. Rule of Civ. Prod. 23(b)(3).  Again, the atypical experiences of the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs would require individualized inquiry into any alleged liabilities and\/or applicable remedies.  Id.<\/em>  In addition, individualized inquiries would be needed \u201cto determine which student-athletes were eligible for various forms of financial aid and the amount of aid they hypothetically would have received.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  This is only further complicated by \u201cthe University\u2019s policy of allocating financial aid on a team-by-team basis and allowing coaches to make discretionary awards to student-athletes,\u201d resulting in a requisite analysis into which student-athletes may have been eligible for aid but were not necessarily awarded scholarships because of other individualized considerations.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regards to the Effective Accommodation Class, the Court held the Rowing Plaintiffs were not members of the proposed class because they failed to demonstrate \u201cthey have the abilities<\/em> to participate in varsity athletics . . . \u201d as their rowing times were markedly lower than the worst performing Division 1 rowing teams.  Id.<\/em> at *8 (emphasis in original).  As such, Rowing Plaintiffs cannot be deprived of the opportunity to participate in varsity athletics.  Id<\/em>.  Moreover, the Rowing Plaintiffs\u2019 \u201cinability to compete on a varsity level subjects them to a unique defense that defeats typicality.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  As mentioned above, rowing was a club sport operating outside of the school’s athletic department.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An interesting focus in the Court\u2019s ruling was its dicta regarding the \u201cproverbial elephant in the Title IX room\u201d \u2014 men\u2019s college football.  Id.<\/em> at *2.  The Court reasoned that college football has evolved into a highly commercialized enterprise requiring investments\u2014\u201cextensive game-day operations and security; expansive locker room and training facilities; specialized coaching staffs numbering in the dozens; strength and conditioning programs; sports medicine and physical therapy personnel; recruiting operations; charter travel; housing and meal programs; academic tutoring; scholarships; and year-round training infrastructure\u201d \u2014 comparative to the scale of its revenue.  Id.<\/em> at *2-3.  Specifically, Title IX compliance cannot be measured solely on a dollar-for-dollar basis and must be \u201cviewed across the athletic program as a whole.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Universities And Other Title IX Institutions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s message to the defense bar here is clear: continue to distinguish the named plaintiffs from the proposed class members (through factual distinctions, discrete issues, shortcomings on judicial efficiency, and unique defenses) as much as possible to  oppose class certification.  The opinion also provides helpful insight into how the statutory and regulatory framework of Title IX permits disparate expenditures among varying collegiate sports (namely men\u2019s football when compared to other sports), serving as a defense into the extraordinary institutional investments associated with men\u2019s college football that does not run counter to the aims of Title IX.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Katherine L. Alphonso, and Jamar D. Davis Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 28, 2026, in Ashley Schroeder et al. v. University of Oregon, Case No. 6:23-CV-01806, 2026 WL 1494043 (D. Or. May 28, 2026), Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Oregon Federal Court Denies Class Certification Due To The Impact Of Unique Defenses On The Named Plaintiffs”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,154,161],"class_list":["post-2985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":154,"user_id":753,"is_guest":0,"slug":"kalphonso","display_name":"Katherine Alphonso","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/katherinealphonso.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":161,"user_id":767,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jddavis","display_name":"Jamar D. Davis","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/04\/davisjamar-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2985"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}