Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Third Claim of Relief. These motions raise four distinct issues. First, are Defendants properly subject to Title IX’s requirements if they do not receive federal financial assistance? Second, are Defendants “state actors?” Third, do Plaintiffs have standing to sue? Fourth, even if Defendant MHSAA is subject to Title IX, may the Individual Defendants be sued in their official capacities? Discussion Summary judgment requires that the Court determine whether the Plaintiffs have presented enough evidence so that a jury could reasonably find for them. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc inquiry and justify a decision to grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, both Plaintiffs and the United States as amicus curiae argue that even tho etic Assoc., 1999 WL 1012948 (E.D.J.Pa. Nov.8, 1999) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated below, the Court does 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that title ix subjects state athletic association to suit under the theory that association controls athletic programs receiving federal aid (B) holding that the ncaa did not exercise controlling authority over school athletic programs (C) holding that federal wage controls applied to state employees too (D) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state (E) holding in part that the ncaa was subject to title vi because it exercised controlling authority over athletic programs receiving federal financial assistance
Output (English): holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state