UVA Gym-Goers v. UVA
74 U.Va 13 (2022)
Peterson, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Today, the Court is faced with an important question. One which has bearing on both the health and the wallets of not only students, but also faculty, spouses, children, and all manner of relations and acquaintances of the UVA community. Petitioners request that the court enjoin all fines, both present and future, which were levied because of so-called “Meter Violations” at IM-Rec facilities on Grounds. Further, petitioners request that the Court order repayment of all previously paid fines, with interest, that occurred in metered parking areas specifically meant for IM-Rec facilities. The Court responds to petitioners’ requests with righteous enthusiasm.[1]
Facts
“IM-Rec Sports is the obvious choice for the UVA Community. . . . IM-Rec Sports is convenient and affordable for anyone affiliated with UVA.”[2]
Clearly, respondents pride themselves on their community’s ability to provide for their mental health and wellbeing with “convenient and affordable” access to the facilities necessary for many of us to stay active and healthy. And one might actually think this is the case, as “[f]ull-time, current students are automatically members [of IM-Rec facilities] through student fees.”[3] However, as petitioners have astutely pointed out to the Court,[4] permission to use the facilities is not everything when it comes to accessing the gym and its various amenities. Access itself is an important factor, and one which the respondents have quietly left out of their “convenient and affordable” package. Yes, that’s right, I’m talking about parking. IM-Rec facilities all have plentiful parking spaces–I certainly have never seen them full. These parking spaces are not, as one might expect, included as part of the gym membership (as they would be at literally[5] any other membership-based gym). Instead, like the rest of respondents’ parking, one must pay to park through the ParkMobile app. For reference, one hour and thirty minutes at North Grounds Rec Center costs $2.60 in parking, if one doesn’t want to get ticketed and is using the gym between 7:30 AM and 5 PM Monday–Friday.
Analysis
Petitioners’ claim is as follows. Respondents have promised that if students pay up, they may use and enjoy the facilities and IM-Rec to their hearts’ content. Respondents claim, on the other hand, that their signage at the parking locations as well as their answer under the “FAQ” section in response to “[h]ow does parking work?”[6] has put petitioners on notice, making them responsible for any fines incurred while trying to exercise the gym-use they were promised mere lines above this statement.
Today, the Court finds the most apt analogy to be the topic of our previous opinion,[7] the public trust doctrine. When a piece of property is held for the use and enjoyment of the public, additional property which is actually necessary to achieve that use and enjoyment is also considered to be held in the public trust.[8]
In this instance, the application of this doctrine is clear. Access to the gym is necessary for students to make use of the memberships, memberships which they have paid for in the form of tuition. And while formally these students do have access to the gym through their memberships, this court is no stranger to looking through the form of an arrangement to its substance. At a rate of $2.60 for each hour and a half session at North Grounds, if a student wanted to go three times a week during the paid hours (as I intend to) they would have to pay roughly $31.20 a month in parking alone. This turns the “convenient and affordable” gym membership included in tuition fees into three times the cost of a membership at Planet Fitness, which only charges $10 a month. And guess what–Planet Fitness’s membership includes parking.
Conclusion
The Court sides with petitioners. Respondents are enjoined from all future enforcement of their metered parking. Further, respondents must refund, with interest, all parking tickets previously levied. The case is remanded to the District Court of Petty Affairs for determination of respondents’ duties consistent with this opinion. Further, the Court awards petitioners with attorney’s fees, because the Court has that power and thinks that respondents should understand what unnecessary fines feel like as well.
Querner, J., concurring
For many Law students, going to the gym is difficult enough on its own. Finding the motivation, time, and energy to get to the gym, then putting oneself through a grueling workout, can take a heroic level of effort. Imagine, then, an exhausted student, post-gym, who wants nothing more than a warm meal and a shower, coming to find that she owes a $60.00 parking ticket to IM-Rec facilities.
One might ask, why should she not pay the $2.60 parking fee for her hour-long workout? At the outset, that seems to help the student avoid owing $57.40. However, drawing the math from Justice Peterson, if the student attended the gym three weekdays per week, she would still owe $31.20 per month in parking fees! Going to the gym, while often exhausting and difficult to fit into a busy student schedule, is a time where students can decompress, de-stress, and build healthy, sustainable habits.
However, considering that many students are not within a close enough vicinity to NGRC or AFC to walk up, the costs of parking are a barrier to these students accessing the multitude of benefits of going to the gym. And, the parking fees are a barrier to all students on days when inclement weather makes it challenging to walk up to the gym. Therefore, to further the purpose of the IM-Rec gyms—which is to provide the physical and mental health benefits of gym-going equally to all students—I concur with the majority that Respondents are enjoined from all future enforcement of their metered parking.
Also, I agree that IM-Rec must refund, with interest, all parking tickets previously levied upon students (I concur with this holding mostly because of the ticket this Justice received at AFC last spring). For these reasons I concur.
Tonseth, C.J. concurs.
It is with the gusto of being refreshed after a two month hiatus from North Grounds that I eagerly join the opinion of this esteemed Court. However, I must urge the Court to go further in their ruling. If I knew how joinder worked, I’d explain how I believe that this decision should equally apply to the Law School itself. As I never really learned Civ Pro,[9] let’s just act like I can add the Law School as a party to this suit and move on with our days.
How does this case apply to the Law School, you may ask? Hasn’t this Court and the Law Weekly already complained about the excessive parking fees charged, with the asinine fees imposed for parking during exam periods, when our ~trusted~ PAs told us parking was free?[10] The lessons from these past complaints are easily understandable: 1) Don’t trust your PAs; 2) Don’t trust UVA’s Department of Parking and Transportation to actually care about students; and 3) and 3OH!3 made bangers.[11] Today’s decision failed to expand on our prior decision in NGSL v. UVA IM-Rec Sports 73 UVa. 9, 2020 to the detriment of every student at North Grounds.[12]
At this point, you’re probably wondering what this over-the-hill 3L is rambling about. Let me do you an educate real quick. Law students are incredibly vain. They post their summer associate positions on LinkedIn in the hopes a partner will see, they post Instagram pictures of their winter vacations to Vail with the “Live, Laugh, Love” caption, and complain that their firm gave them Airpods, for free, with Sidley written on the side because it’s “bad for the brand.” In this same vein, I would apply the Court’s public trust doctrine to the Law School. What is the remedy for this? Not paying back parking fees, or reducing parking costs. No, something more valuable to the vanity of a law student. I’m talking about a gym in the middle of Spies Garden.
You’re probably thinking, this is crazy. But, what’s a better way to improve student health and reduce any potential parking fees? Make a more accessible gym, where students can either show off their new Lulu leggings on the stair stepper, or simply go shirtless and do crunches hoping that cute 1L notices them. Incredibly vain? You bet. Cost effective? Check. Improves mental and physical health? Win-win.
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
kmq8vf@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] In no small part due to the $45 ticket that Justice Peterson currently has yet to pay, which has resulted in another $35 of late fees.
[2] UVA IM-Rec Membership, https://recsports.virginia.edu/membership (last visited Jan. 23, 2022, 11:32 PM) (emphasis added).
[3] Id. It is of further note that full-time employees receive only a $50 subsidy on year-long memberships, leaving them with an annual $340 fee, or roughly $28.33 per month
[4] And made very clear by Justice Peterson’s ticket, which is next to him as he authors this opinion.
[5] I believe this may actually be a case where I am using literally correctly, and not just hyperbolically.
[6] UVA IM-Rec Membership, https://recsports.virginia.edu/membership (last visited Jan. 23, 2022, 11:32 PM) .
[7] See UVA Student Body v. Ivy Gardens Pool, et al., 74 U.Va 12 (2021).
[8] See generally Matthew v. Bay Head Improvement Association 95 N.J. 306 (holding that the public must be given access to privately-owned dry sand to access waters held in the public trust).
[9] S/O Professor Harrison.
[10] “Parking and the Student-Centered Law School,” Michael Berdan. https://www.lawweekly.org/col/2021/4/14/parking-and-the-student-centered-law-school
[11] IYKYK.
[12] Let the kids play.