A class-action lawsuit has been filed by over 20 current and incoming Quinnipiac University women’s rugby athletes following the decision to demote the team from Division I to club status, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX.
The lawsuit, filed on Friday, asks for an emergency order and seeks reinstatement of the program’s varsity status and also alleges that the decision was made in retaliation to head coach Becky Carlson’s repeated outspokenness in concern of unequal treatment.
The decision was announced in an April 14 press release by Quinnipiac Athletics stating that along with the demotion, a decision was also made to add a men’s indoor and outdoor distance program.
Quinnipiac claims these decisions were made in an initiative to align “institutional resources with long-term competitive priorities, fiscal sustainability, and the University’s ongoing commitment to Title IX compliance.”
The complaint names the defendants as Quinnipiac University, the university’s board of trustees, President Marie Hardin and Director of Athletics Greg Amodio.
The more than 20 athletes call for reinstatement after “the culmination of years of work, sacrifice, and personal commitment,” per the complaint.
This is not the first time complaints have been filed against the university in regard to alleged Title IX violations.
“The decision is particularly troubling because women’s varsity rugby was one of the very programs QU expanded and relied upon following prior Title IX litigation in this very court concerning inequitable athletic participation opportunities for women,” the complaint said.
A university spokesperson told The Chronicle that Quinnipiac does not comment on litigation, and directed further inquiries to the April 14 press release and FAQs.
The athletes are suing the university on three counts: retaliation, unequal allocation of athletic treatment and benefits and sex discrimination.
Here’s a deeper look at the complaint.
COUNT I: RETALIATION
Count I alleges that the decision was made as retaliation for Carlson repeatedly advocating for the treatment of women’s sports programs, athletes and coaches, both publicly and privately.
“Carlson’s public advocacy concerned sex-based inequities in (Quinnipiac’s) athletics program and constituted protected Title IX-related activity,” according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, Quinnipiac’s “elimination, defunding, downgrading, discontinuation or withdrawal of support from women’s varsity rugby constitutes retaliation in violation of Title IX.”
The complaint also makes note that the alleged retaliation would thus affect future advocacy.
Quinnipiac’s “decision would deter a reasonable student-athlete, witness, coach, or other person from raising, supporting, participating in, or pursuing Title IX concerns or complaints regarding QU’s treatment of female athletes,” according to the complaint.
In 2023, The Chronicle took a deep dive into the under-recognition of the women’s rugby team — the first Quinnipiac program to win a national championship.
“Are we entitled to all of the riches? No, but we’re going to operate and have the same resources,” Carlson told The Chronicle in 2023. “We didn’t have an academic coordinator working with our team … We would stretch in the parking lot, then I would have my car lights, myself and my assistant coach, we’d put our car lights on.”
The women’s rugby team isn’t the only Quinnipiac program who has felt unfair treatment from the university on the basis on sex.
In 2024 former Quinnipiac women’s lacrosse head coach Tanya “TK” Kotowicz was terminated, per a Quinnipiac Athletics press release.
With Carlson’s advocacy extending across all women’s sports, she took to X in response.
“This is outrageous and not the whole story,” Carlson wrote. “The coach didn’t ‘leave the program.’ Coach K is an outstanding person of moral character who deserved better. The truth will come out. As a colleague, I am disgusted.”
And just last year, in August 2025, Kotowitz filed a nine-count lawsuit against Quinnipiac, alleging sex-discrimnation.
In addition to Carlson’s public advocacy, the complaint alleges that she privately raised concerns to university administrators and athletic department leadership as well.
COUNT II: UNEQUAL ALLOCATION OF ATHLETIC TREATMENT AND BENEFITS
Count II alleges unequal allocation of athletic treatment and benefits, including but not limited to, “equipment, supplies, uniforms, lockerrooms, scheduling for competitions, transportation and accommodations for travel, per diem for travel, coaching, tutoring and academic support services, practice and competition facilities, medical and training services, weight training and conditioning services, housing and dining services, sports information and publicity services, recruiting, video support and other services.”
The complaint cites that, “under Title IX and 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c), QU must allocate these benefits equally between male athletes and female athletes. On a program-wide basis, it must provide female athletes with benefits that are comparable to those that it provides to male athletes.”
According to the complaint, the university “allocates athletic benefits, resources, support, budgets and opportunities in a manner that disproportionately favors male student athletes and fails to provide female student athletes with benefits and treatment equivalent to those required by Title IX.”
While the university cites Title IX compliance as the reason for the decision, the complaint finds that Quinnipiac’s Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data reflects “persistent disparities in the resources provided to female student athletes as compared to male student athletes.”
The complaint cites data from the 2020-21 to 2024-25 competitive cycles where the university provided more resources to men’s teams than women’s, even while Quinnipiac sponsors more women’s teams than men’s.
The most recent data, from 2024-25, “female student athletes made up approximately 63.45% of (Quinnipiac’s) unduplicated student athletes,” but the university spent about 56.76% of its recruiting expenses on female athletes, per the complaint.
In that same year, while female student athletes made up about 63.45% of Quinnipiac’s unduplicated student athletes, women’s teams received approximately 49.65% of the allocated athletic team expenses.
Quinnipiac “spent approximately $60,337 in athletic expenses per male student-athlete, compared to approximately $52,503 per female student-athlete, a difference of approximately $7,833 per female student-athlete,” according to the complaint.
COUNT III: SEX DISCRIMINATION
The third count alleges discrimination on the basis on sex.
Prior to this complaint and the 2025 lawsuit filed by Kotowitz, a 2009 class-action lawsuit, Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, found that the university “violated Title IX by discrimination against its female-student athletes on the basis of sex and denying them equal opportunities,” per The Chronicle.
The complaint cites that Quinnipiac is aware of the Title IX obligations following the Biediger lawsuit.
“Defendants relied on women’s varsity rugby as part of their post-Biediger compliance posture,” according to the complaint. “In moving to lift the prior injunction, Defendants represented that Quinnipiac had added women’s varsity rugby as a varsity team.”
The complaint alleges that the university eliminated the program rather than “remedy” the unequal treatment.
“Those unequal treatment and benefits violated the spirit, purpose, and requirements of the 2013 Consent Decree, which required Defendants to provide equal treatment and benefits to their men’s and women’s varsity athletic programs and to promote women’s rugby as a varsity sport,” per the complaint.
It is also noted that the university has opted into or is participating in the post-House NCAA framework, a model born from the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement.
“The House Settlement is poised to bring significant changes to the landscape of college athletics, with schools now permitted to make direct payments to student-athletes,” according to KMK Law.
The complaint alleges that the university is providing these advantages unequally, providing or preserving greater access to several benefits and opportunities to male student athletes than female.
THE ATHLETES
The complaint highlights that the athletes chose Quinnipiac for the ability to play Division I rugby at a nationally recognized university, as well as the coaching staff, financial support and unique opportunities in furthering their education — including the university’s various accelerated and dual-degree programs.
For current athletes, they “had already structured their academic, athletic, housing, financial and personal plans around returning to the women’s varsity rugby program” for the 2026-27 year. For incoming athletes, the decision came during the final months of their high school career, leaving them to reevaluate their post-graduation commitments.
Quinnipiac’s decision caused the athletes “personal harm” and stripped them of a support system, according to the complaint.
The athletes worked for years to reach the Division I level, many with hopes to continue in the sport following their collegiate career.
For Plaintiff Reagan Perez, a rising junior wing/scrumhalf, and the other athletes, rugby was more than just a sport, but also an outlet and community.
“Rugby has played a deep personal role in Plaintiff Perez’s life and development,” according to the complaint. “Rugby provided Plaintiff Perez with an emotional outlet, support, and a sense of belonging.”
Support for the athletes was immediately and loudly shown from women’s rugby alumni as well as members of the Quinnipiac community and beyond. However, the athletes have not felt support from the university, especially with the announcement being so sudden.
“The abrupt and unsupported way Defendants’ decision was delivered fundamentally altered (Plaintiff and freshman lock Carolyn Melody’s) sense of stability, purpose and future at QU,” according to the complaint.
The complaint includes the personal effects of the decision on numerous other athletes as well, who have felt significant impact.
Following the announcement, concerns were immediately raised about the students’ athletic scholarships.
According to Quinnipiac Athletics, the university “will honor all existing commitments in accordance with NCAA and institutional policies.”
But the complaint notes that the decision still leaves athletes increasingly uncertain of their academic and athletic future, in regard to finances.
For instance, Plaintiff and rising junior wing McKenzie Kroeger “has extremely limited transfer opportunities because comparable schools cannot provide equivalent scholarship support, educational opportunities, or rugby competition.”
And similarly, for Plaintiff and rising junior center Anna Wright, the “elimination of the women’s varsity rugby program may delay her graduation and impose significant additional educational expenses and debt.”
