Quinnipiac Rugby

Quinnipiac Athletes Say Team Downgrade Was Title IX Payback

By Aaron Keller ·

Law360, Bridgeport, Conn. (June 26, 2026, 10:03 PM EDT) -- Quinnipiac University should be stopped from demoting its women's rugby team from varsity to club status because the school seized the earliest opportunity to retaliate against a coach who raised Title IX complaints, current and recruited players told a Connecticut federal judge Friday.

U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley said she would issue a written ruling by Tuesday on the athletes' emergency request for a temporary restraining order, declining to immediately rule after a three-day hearing. Following testimony from Quinnipiac's athletic director, its former women's rugby coach and two athletes, the judge said she wanted to review the proper legal standard for causation, which the parties contested.

The judge said she may want to review the parties' arguments about pretext, should she get to that step in the analysis. She reiterated that she had not made a decision.

Arguing for 23 current and recruited players, Lori Bullock of Bullock Law PLLC said Title IX retaliation claims in the Second Circuit are judged under a more relaxed standard than the school argued applies. Citing Papelino v. Albany College of Pharmacy of Union University , a 2011 Second Circuit case, Bullock said retaliation can give rise to a valid Title IX claim if it is one motivating factor behind an adverse decision.

She said Quinnipiac didn't downgrade its women's rugby program until March 14 because it had been unable to do so. First, the school sought to exit a consent decree in Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, another Title IX lawsuit. Once court supervision in that case was lifted on June 30, 2025, university officials "were told not to take any actions after the first year," Bullock said, citing testimony from athletic director Greg Amodio. Quinnipiac announced the rugby downgrade immediately after the team ended its 2025-26 season, she recalled.

"The very first opportunity Quinnipiac had, they cut the varsity team from varsity status," Bullock told Judge Dooley.

No other team was considered for elimination, she argued. Amodio did not make sufficient efforts to promote rugby at Quinnipiac or among other colleges despite the Biediger case mandating the school make good faith efforts to do so, Bullock added.

"It is clear from the outset ... he has not made the necessary efforts to treat women's rugby equally to men's sports or other women's sports," she argued.

Amodio testified the change was necessary because women were overrepresented on Quinnipiac teams, and the university feared a lawsuit by men who did not have equal opportunities. Plus, he said, each university department was forced to cut 6% of its budget due to a drop in enrollment.

Bullock said those reasons were pretext. She argued Quinnipiac really wanted the team gone because its former head women's rugby coach Rebecca Carlson raised repeated complaints about unequal facilities, including a field that was one-third its standard size. A newly constructed baseball field also drained into the rugby field, leaving the women's team playing in mud, Bullock noted.

Quinnipiac would save only $350,000 per year to begin, though its athletic department was asked to cut $1.1 million, Bullock said. Judge Dooley noted the cost savings would increase after the rugby athletes graduated, since the university extended their athletic scholarships even though the team had been downgraded.

Bullock said Quinnipiac downgraded rugby after opting into a $2.78 billion National Collegiate Athletic Association athlete compensation settlement. Sharing revenues and offering name, image and likeness payments to some athletes forced the school to redirect resources away from the rugby team, forcing it to bear settlement opt-in costs, she argued.

Though Quinnipiac said it wanted to focus on remaining competitive in NCAA championships, Bullock noted that some other teams in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference did not opt into the settlement. Therefore, not every direct competitor could entice athletes through name, image and likeness or revenue share payments, she said.

According to Bullock, Quinnipiac did not immediately cut the team because doing so could have increased the school's exposure to a lawsuit from Carlson, who testified in earlier Title IX proceedings.

Judge Dooley noted that Carlson offered to resign after an earlier season. Bullock said had Quinnipiac accepted her offer to step down because of struggles related to alleged unequal treatment, it could have been sued for constructive discharge. Cutting the entire team was a less risky move, she argued.

"Coach Carlson's been a thorn in the side of the Quinnipiac University athletic department since 2013, and she made it clear she wasn't going to stop," Bullock said.

The university's $350,000 expense to keep the team running through the 2026-27 academic year is less than the intangible harm to the athletes, she continued. A temporary restraining order would also prevent a "chilling effect" on Title IX complaints, according to Bullock.

According to her, Quinnipiac is saying, "if you complain, your team could be the next to go."

Arguing for the university, Susan D. Friedfel of Jackson Lewis PC said the athletes did not adequately show causation before turning to their pretext arguments. Quinnipiac was not "biding its time with this burning desire" to fire Carlson or demote the team, she said, arguing the athletes were making "four steps of assumptions" to make their case.

The former head coach has raised federal civil rights and Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities complaints several times over the years, and though Quinnipiac could have terminated her after every season, it retained her as head coach until it downgraded the team, Friedfel said.

She said it was "incredulous" for the students to argue the university was biding its time to scuttle the varsity program when its entire business is teaching students.

According to Friedfel, but-for causation is the proper standard for establishing Title IX retaliation links. To support her argument, she cited Gagliardi v. Sacred Heart University , a Connecticut federal court case that led to written decisions in both 2019 and 2020 .

Friedfel said Quinnipiac was under no obligation under the Biediger consent decree to advocate for women's rugby after 2016.

Other decisions, such as the university's rationale to join the name, image and likeness settlement, were business decisions on where to best focus resources, she argued. Entering the athlete compensation settlement ensured Quinnipiac would remain competitive, Friedfel said.

"As a business, the university has a right to self-determination," she said.

Though one Quinnipiac women's rugby athlete competed in the Olympics, the team's three national championships occurred roughly a decade ago and came after the school beat only around 10 teams, Friedfel noted. She said the university had a legitimate interest in focusing on NCAA championship sports, where championships require beating hundreds of teams. Rugby is an NCAA emerging sport, with a separate playoff structure governed by the National Intercollegiate Rugby Association, according to testimony.

Reagan Perez, a Quinnipiac athlete who testified during the hearing, said she transferred to the school after her original college cut its rugby team. The sport has been considered emerging for more than two decades, and "it's not on solid ground," Friedfel argued.

Perez and another player, Carolyn Melody, said the team was distraught when it learned it would be downgraded with roughly two weeks left in the spring semester. Melody said she struggled to complete end-of-the-year assignments, and her perfect 4.0 GPA slipped.

Friedfel admitted the college made mistakes in the way it handled the announcement, which occurred after the athletic season — but not the academic semester — had concluded.

"Did they do it perfectly? No," she said. But she said the university did not act with malice and did not engage in gender discrimination.

During a rebuttal, Bullock said Quinnipiac kept women's rugby because of the prior lawsuit, and "when they thought they could get away with it, they got rid of the team."

She noted that her emergency request for a temporary restraining order did not benefit from depositions or other discovery.

Title IX protects students from decisions made "on the basis of s*x," Bullock added. Though the university appears to have brought its men's and women's teams within substantial proportionality of one another, another Title IX requirement, the issue is retaliatory motive, she argued.

Offering her own rebuttal, Friedfel said Quinnipiac responded to many of Carlson's complaints, just as it did with other coaches, depending on available resources.

Friday's oral arguments capped a hearing scheduled for Tuesday, but which spilled into Wednesday and then into Friday.

In a June 5 proposed class action complaint, the athletes alleged Quinnipiac used NCAA revenue-sharing changes, budget pressures and roster management as pretext for downgrading women's rugby from varsity to club status. The proposed class seeks to represent present and future female Quinnipiac athletes.

The women sought an emergency temporary restraining order to preserve the team's varsity status, as well as broader injunctions barring retaliation and requiring the university to administer new athlete compensation and revenue-sharing benefits equitably.

Carlson testified the team had long been treated as "less of a sport." She alleged they were given substandard facilities, limited institutional support and what she described as diminished recognition compared with other championship teams.

Amodio testified that the university needed to reduce women's opportunities and add men's opportunities to better align athletics rosters with shifting student demographics. He also said the overrepresentation of women could leave the institution liable to men who might argue they lack equal opportunities.

The athletes are represented by Lori Bullock of Bullock Law PLLC, and Christine D. Brown and Ben LaCourse of Christine Brown & Partners LLC.

Quinnipiac is represented by Susan D. Friedfel, William J. Rocha and Thomas W. Moyher of Jackson Lewis PC.

The case is Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac University et al., case number 3:26-cv-00898, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

--Additional reporting by David Steele. Editing by Adam LoBelia.

Update!

Decision will be made on Tuesday! Stay tuned!

Judge taking more time to decide fate of Quinnipiac women’s rugby program A judge is taking more time to rule whether Quinnipiac University’s decision to transition its women’s rugby team to club sport status violates Title IX.

Come support today! Stay tuned for the initial injunction ruling which we will hopefully be getting today!

Tomorrow matters.

The Quinnipiac Women’s Rugby players return to federal court as they fight to preserve their varsity program while their Title IX lawsuit moves forward.

If you’re in Connecticut, come stand with the athletes.

📍 Brien McMahon Federal Building
915 Lafayette Blvd, Bridgeport, CT (4th Floor)

🕐 Hearing: 1:00 PM
⏰ Arrive by 12:30 PM to allow time for security.

Your presence sends a message that these athletes are not standing alone.

Let’s fill the courtroom.

Quinnipiac Rugby Title IX Case Leaves Judge Feeling 'Terrible'

By Aaron Keller ·

Law360, Bridgeport, Conn. (June 24, 2026, 9:10 PM EDT) -- Quinnipiac University and 23 rugby players accusing the school of Title IX violations should focus summations on a retaliation claim, not a discrimination claim, because retaliation presents a "stickier" legal question based on facts gleaned during a two-day hearing, a Connecticut federal judge said Wednesday.

Speaking after the final witness in the athletes' bid for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley criticized the Division I college for the way it notified varsity female athletes that their rugby team was being downgraded to a club sport. Based on testimony from two players, Judge Dooley said the process was "not optimal," "not good optics" and arguably "unfair," but she stopped short of saying the students might win legal relief.

"I feel terrible for all of them," the judge said of the athletes, but the case "has to tie back to a Title IX violation, and that's a little harder," she added.

Current and recruited players want Judge Dooley to return the program to varsity status while additional litigation plays out. A Tuesday hearing on the athletes' bid for a restraining order spilled into an unscheduled second day of testimony Wednesday; the parties agreed to return Friday for oral arguments.

"It's going to be a hot bench," Judge Dooley warned both sides.

According to the judge, the students appear to have proven irreparable harm, but they face a more difficult challenge proving likely success on the merits.

"It's an extremely difficult decision based on the evidence on record," the judge said.

The parties also contest the proper standard for proving causation, Judge Dooley said. Quinnipiac wants the judge to apply a but-for standard, forcing the students to show their former coach's prior complaints about what she claimed were unequal facilities played a direct role in the team's downgrade, the judge noted. The students want to show only that the complaints were a motivating factor in the school's decision to downgrade the team, Judge Dooley said. The U.S. Supreme Court has not clarified the correct standard, the judge noted.

Judge Dooley said the but-for standard would pose a formidable hurdle for the athletes, since former head coach Rebecca Carlson's complaints occurred in 2017 and 2018, years before the women's rugby program's mid-April shift to club status. The school also declined to accept Carlson's resignation during a prior season, urging her to stay at Quinnipiac, Judge Dooley noted, recalling Carlson's Tuesday testimony. According to the judge, some evidence pointed toward retaliation, while other evidence undermined that claim.

After testifying as the athletes' first witness Tuesday, athletic director Greg Amodio returned to the stand Wednesday to defend the school's decision.

According to Amodio, women make up more than 60% of Quinnipiac undergraduates, while men constitute less than 40%. Male enrollment has increased in recent years, and to maintain Title IX compliance, athletic programs needed to be rebalanced to reflect the student population, Amodio testified.

He said male athletes made up 32.66% of the athletic roster in 2025-26 school year, while females comprised 67.34%. After realigning the women's rugby program as a club sport, which wouldn't count toward Title IX numbers, the projected 2026-27 team rosters would be 39.55% male, 60.45% female, according to numbers he provided.

"We needed to reduce women's opportunities and increase men's opportunities," Amodio testified.

To make that happen, Quinnipiac added a men's track and field team and focused on a women's acrobatics and tumbling team, he said. The National Collegiate Athletic Association in January elevated acrobatics and tumbling to a championship sport and established national playoffs, and Amodio said Quinnipiac wanted to focus on that program because of its heightened NCAA status.

Rugby, by comparison, has been designated an NCAA emerging sport for more than 20 years, he said. Women's championship rugby games are orchestrated by a separate organization, the National Intercollegiate Rugby Association. Quinnipiac clinched the national NIRA championship in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Amodio said student demographic shifts and the NCAA's recognition of acrobatics and tumbling coincided with a universitywide order for each department to trim 6% of its budget due to a 200-student enrollment drop.

Lori Bullock, a lawyer for the athletes, challenged Amodio's rationale for including women's rugby athletes on the school's Title IX compliance counts. A consent decree issued after a prior Title IX lawsuit, Biediger v. Quinnipiac University , allowed the school to exclude women's rugby from Title IX reporting because of its emerging sport status and separate playoff structure. When the Biediger consent decree expired in 2024, Quinnipiac added women's rugby athletes to its Title IX reports, even as it did not count acrobatics and tumbling, which at the time was also an emerging sport, Bullock noted.

Amodio did not know specifics about the decisions, but under questioning from Quinnipiac counsel Susan D. Friedfel of Jackson Lewis PC, he said the possibility of a discrimination claim from a male student was "always a concern based on imbalance" between male and female athletes.

Two Quinnipiac rugby players testified they were ushered into an April 14 meeting before a workout session to be told their team had been demoted.

Carolyn Melody, 19, said she was stunned by the news, which came on the heels of a weekend event that left the team in high spirits.

"They were finding out on a Tuesday morning the trajectory of their life would change," she said of her teammates.

Classes ended May 2, and final exams concluded May 8, just weeks after the announcement.

Melody said she and other rugby players felt betrayed by the university and were uncomfortable using its resources to help end the semester. Many requested extensions on end-of-the-year class projects, but due to what Melody characterized as a miscommunication between a Quinnipiac office and one of her professors, she received a B+ grade in statistics, dropping her perfect 4.0 grade point average.

One teammate was so bothered by the announcement she was placed on "a type of su***de watch," Melody said.

Melody said the team didn't know what office to contact for assistance for some of its problems until her lawyers became involved.

Some players tried to line up transfers to other schools, with little success, according to Melody. She said she was lured to Quinnipiac because of its unique sports communications program and because she loved playing rugby. Plus, she said, the financial aid package worked. Other schools she identified would not provide similar scholarships or did not offer academic programs of interest, she said.

Reagan Perez, another player, said demoting women's rugby to a club sport would strip the team of resources. A men's rugby team on campus, also a club sport, is managed and coached by a student, she said.

Since rugby is a contact sport, players benefit from the expertise of sport-specific athletic trainers who know how to treat typical rugby injuries, Perez added. She worried that a club sport could increase injuries to current and new players.

Testimony stalled when Quinnipiac raised concerns about Melody's assessment of a financial aid letter she received by email on June 17. Melody said the letter appeared to hike what she presumed was her 2026-27 bill, despite promises that her more than $22,000-per-year athletic scholarship would increase along with rising tuition rates.

Amodio on Tuesday testified Quinnipiac would continue to honor scholarships offered to women's rugby athletes, even though the program had been downgraded from varsity status.

Judge Dooley ordered the parties to hash out the apparent dispute. Quinnipiac said a Tuesday letter contained Melody's correct financial aid package, but she apparently had not received it before testifying.

If she returns to Quinnipiac, Melody's total cost of attendance would top $79,000 during the 2026-27 academic year, according to the June 17 letter.

After court, Christine D. Brown, another attorney for the athletes, said burden of proof would be key during closing arguments Friday.

"Remember, this is a motion for a temporary restraining order," Brown said. "No matter what way this motion goes, the case still continues."

The plaintiffs are represented by Christine D. Brown and Ben LaCourse of Christine Brown & Partners LLC, and Lori Bullock of Bullock Law PLLC.

Quinnipiac is represented by Susan D. Friedfel, William J. Rocha and Thomas W. Moyher of Jackson Lewis PC.

The case is Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac University et al., case number 3:26-cv-00898, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

--Editing by Marygrace Anderson.

https://www.law360.com/articles/2493316

Tomorrow matters.

The Quinnipiac Women’s Rugby players return to federal court as they fight to preserve their varsity program while their Title IX lawsuit moves forward.

If you’re in Connecticut, come stand with the athletes.

📍 Brien McMahon Federal Building
915 Lafayette Blvd, Bridgeport, CT (4th Floor)

🕐 Hearing: 1:00 PM
⏰ Arrive by 12:30 PM to allow time for security.

Your presence sends a message that these athletes are not standing alone.

Let’s fill the courtroom.

This felt like a good time to share this for our new followers.

15 years to build... Gone in a Day: The Full Women's Quinnipiac Story On April 14, 2026, Quinnipiac University cut its Division I women's...

Quinnipiac women’s rugby players get their date in court. Here’s where lawsuit stands.

By LORI RILEY | [email protected] | Hartford Courant
PUBLISHED: June 23, 2026 at 6:28 PM EDT |

BRIDGEPORT – A case involving the Quinnipiac University women’s rugby team, eliminated by the school in April, was heard in U.S. Federal Court on Tuesday with testimony continuing on Wednesday.

Twenty-three members of the varsity rugby team, which was cut on April 14 by the university due to budgetary reasons, are seeking a temporary restraining order to restore status quo prior to the decision to eliminate program. Such a move would then allow the team to move forward and get ready to play this fall while litigation continues.

“We really appreciated the opportunity to present our evidence and have some time in court,” Lori Bullock, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Tuesday afternoon. “We’re looking forward to coming back (Wednesday) to finish the presentation. We’re pleased we had the opportunity to be heard.

“We’re really glad that the judge has been patient, letting us come back. We’re always hopeful it’s going to go our way but we have one more day of evidence to put on.”

Judge Kari A. Dooley, who is presiding over the case, could issue a ruling from the bench Wednesday or do so at a later date. But because the team needs to know if it will keep playing, the ruling will likely come fairly soon.

In their lawsuit filed on June 5, the players alleged that Quinnipiac has engaged in long-standing s*x discrimination by providing women’s teams with unequal benefits, treatment, and support across key areas of athletics. They have argued that the decision to cut women’s rugby is a retaliatory response to repeated Title IX concerns raised about the treatment of female athletes.

Becky Carlson, the Quinnipiac rugby coach since the inception of the program in 2010, testified Tuesday that she believed that she was “at the forefront of the decision (to eliminate the team).”

“I’ve been the only coach and I have a deep history of asking questions,” she said.

During her testimony, Carlson stated that she had complained many times about the Quinnipiac rugby field, which was not regulation size, when the team started playing in 2011. Initially, the team practiced in a parking lot. The team finally got a regulation field in 2017 after playing every game away during the 2016-17 season because of construction.

She also stated that she had complained that the school didn’t prioritize publicizing the team after it won three national championships from 2015-2017.

“When men’s hockey won their first national championship, it was a very joyous time for the university and it created a very clear picture of how our achievements were celebrated,” Carlson said. “There was a very deep notable public disparity.

“The alumni are asking me, ‘Why didn’t we get any of this?’ It was an alumni firestorm in my texts and my calls. I said, ‘I will try to fix this. I will communicate this as best I can.’”

Carlson also stated she had filed Title IX complaints with the Office of Civil Rights.

On April 14, the school announced that it would transition women’s rugby from varsity to club status and add a men’s indoor and outdoor distance program in track and field. The current women’s rugby players would be allowed to keep their scholarships, the school said.

Athletic director Greg Amodio testified Tuesday that the department had to cut its budget by 6 percent per a university-wide directive. He said that before April 14, Carlson was not notified of the potential elimination of the team.

Asked by Bullock if he gave the rugby team the opportunity to raise funds to save its team before it was cut, he stated, “That conversation did not take place.”

The women’s rugby team was added after Quinnipiac decided to drop its volleyball program in 2009 and the coach and players sued the university then for Title IX violations. It was determined that the school was out of compliance with the law and the university agreed to retain volleyball, add women’s rugby and eventually add scholarships, coaches, increase salaries and upgrade its women’s athletic facilities.

Carlson, a former college rugby player who worked for USA Rugby as the emerging sports program manager, was hired and Quinnipiac became the second Division I women’s rugby program.

The sport is classified as an emerging sport by the NCAA and operates under the umbrella of the National Intercollegiate Rugby Association.

Two of the plaintiffs – rising junior Regan Perez and rising sophomore Carolyn Melody, both players on the team – are expected to testify Wednesday.

Quinnipiac women’s rugby players get their date in court. Here’s where lawsuit stands. Quinnipiac women’s rugby seeks temporary restraining order in court Tuesday to keep its team, which was eliminated in April by the school, at status quo while litigation continues.

Quinnipiac Treated Rugby As 'Less Of A Sport,' Judge Told

By Aaron Keller ·

Law360, Bridgeport, Conn. (June 23, 2026, 9:32 PM EDT) -- Quinnipiac University women's rugby athletes and new recruits urged a Connecticut federal judge Tuesday to force the Division I school to maintain the team's varsity status while a Title IX discrimination lawsuit unfolds, arguing the school unfairly targeted the program during budget cuts despite clinching three national titles.

During an all-day hearing on the athletes' bid for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, former head coach Rebecca Carlson testified the team's victories occurred despite repeated hurdles she said other athletic programs did not encounter. For instance, Quinnipiac's rugby field was 15 yards too narrow, leaving her players practicing on turf one-third smaller than regulations required, Carlson said.

The difference "changes everything about how you compete," the former coach testified.

At least one entire season consisted of competitions at other schools, adding significant travel to the athletes' schedules, Carlson added.

When the team first started playing, athletes aimed their car headlights to illuminate the playing surface, she said. The rugby field initially had no benches, and once they were provided, they could fall over backwards into an area that was typically wet, Carlson said.

Other parts of the field were frequently muddy due to construction issues, and visitors to other nearby fields trampled the rugby surface because it wasn't fenced off, she testified.

New baseball and tennis fields were installed on the immediate edge of Quinnipiac's rugby field, causing players to feel even more cramped, Carlson said, at one point describing how she protected her players from other sports teams' stray balls.

Spectators were offered only a few scattered two-person benches, she added. Those who wished to watch games through online streams suffered through announcers who didn't understand rugby and a signal that often cut out because the field wasn't properly wired, Carlson testified.

"Walls were closing in," said Carlson, who exited in May after a 16-year run. "We were being forgotten about," she added.

Carlson accused Quinnipiac administrators of viewing rugby as "less of a sport because we're an emerging sport." The school's three national rugby titles received less recognition compared with Quinnipiac's 2023 men's ice hockey championship, she testified. The hockey team competed in a fully sanctioned National Collegiate Athletic Association tournament, and the women's rugby team, as an NCAA emerging sport, earned National Intercollegiate Rugby Association titles through an end-of-season playoff series that wasn't orchestrated directly through the NCAA.

Carlson filed two civil rights complaints accusing the school of unequal treatment. An investigation revealed no evidence of retaliation, Carlson told Quinnipiac attorney Susan D. Friedfel of Jackson Lewis PC on cross-examination.

Carlson also said the fence separating the rugby field from the baseball field was moved after she complained.

The former head coach was subpoenaed to testify after 16 current players and seven high school recruits filed the Title IX lawsuit June 5. The athletes want U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley to immediately block the school from downgrading rugby to a student-run, separately funded club sport while the discrimination challenge progresses.

Barbara Osborne, a University of North Carolina adjunct law professor and sports law textbook author, also testified for the athletes. She said Quinnipiac's program cuts prevented the school from claiming Title IX compliance by showing it was expanding its program offerings, leaving the school no other legal option than to claim its athletic offerings were "substantially proportional" for both men and women.

Osborne said she believed Quinnipiac added women's rugby to become more compliant and criticized what she described as the school's "disingenuous" claim that it wished to focus on NCAA championship sports.

Those opinions drew a rebuke from Friedfel, who challenged Osborne's use of Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act data as the basis for some of her Title IX opinions. Friedfel also said U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill issued a 2013 decision in another case, Biediger v. Quinnipiac University , finding Quinnipiac could not count women's rugby as a Title IX-compliant sport because players did not compete in an NCAA championship tournament, even though the NCAA recognized rugby as an emerging sport.

Friedfel also said women constituted the bulk of Quinnipiac's student athletes, leaving men underrepresented.

Still, Osborne said demoting the rugby team would hurt its players, who she believed would probably not receive the same training, coaching, support and career opportunities typically enjoyed by varsity players. She said schools like Quinnipiac, which joined the NCAA's $2.78 billion athlete revenue settlement, have typically cut programs.

Athletic director Greg Amodio testified that all Quinnipiac departments were ordered to trim 6% of their budgets through a process that began last year. He said the rugby program needed to be downgraded to help the athletic department trim roughly $1.14 million from its $19.2 million budget while adding a $150,000 men's track and field program.

"As it all fell out, we realized we needed to reduce some opportunities and add some opportunities," Amodio testified.

"This was the path that made the most strategic sense," Amodio said, adding that other departments also faced staff and salary cuts. He said his $397,000 base salary was not affected by the belt-tightening measures.

Amodio said the school also needed to calculate revenue sharing and name, image and likeness payments to some student athletes.

But Carlson said she ended the 2025-26 varsity rugby season with a nearly $12,000 surplus. Administrators told her the team was "cash positive," and she said she registered only a $256 deficit in one prior year. Other programs ran larger deficits, Carlson said, but Amodio said some of those deficits were offset by donations.

Carlson blamed the rugby team's demotion on her own Title IX discrimination complaints, accusing administrators of not wanting to deal with making the program equal.

"Ever since I testified, it was a mark that was never going to leave," Carlson said.

Though the hearing was scheduled to conclude Tuesday, testimony will spill into a second day Wednesday. Two student athletes are expected to testify, and Quinnipiac will call Amodio back to the stand, likely as its only witness, its lawyers indicated.

"We're really glad that the judge has been patient," said Lori Bullock of Bullock Law PLLC, who represents the athletes.

The athletes have requested a quick decision, but Bullock declined to predict whether Judge Dooley would rule from the bench Wednesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christine D. Brown and Ben LaCourse of Christine Brown & Partners LLC, and Lori Bullock of Bullock Law PLLC.

Quinnipiac is represented by Susan D. Friedfel, William J. Rocha and Thomas W. Moyher of Jackson Lewis PC.

The case is Perez et al. v. Quinnipiac University et al., case number 3:26-cv-00898, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

--Editing by Marygrace Anderson.

Quinnipiac Treated Rugby As 'Less Of A Sport,' Judge Told - Law360 Quinnipiac University women's rugby athletes and new recruits urged a Connecticut federal judge Tuesday to force the Division I school to maintain the team's varsity status while a Title IX discrimination lawsuit unfolds, arguing the school unfairly targeted the program during budget cuts despite cl...