A federal judge from the Eastern District of California has denied a motion for reconsideration brought by several female athletes, who had claimed that the court erred in an earlier ruling when it held that their section § 1983 claims against the individual defendants within the University of California at Davis were time-barred.
In so ruling, the court concluded that the acts in question were “discrete” in nature and thus subject to time limitations.
In a previous summary reported in Legal Issues in Collegiate Athletics and Sports Litigation Alert, the court used the complaint to recap the events leading up to the litigation with an extensive narrative.
“In the 1990s, varsity wrestling at UCD included both women and men,” the court wrote. “Female wrestlers at UCD received high quality coaching, wrestled under women’s freestyle rules rather than men’s collegiate rules, and received the various benefits of varsity status. Some of UCD’s female wrestlers went on to national and international acclaim after having trained at and received the benefits of wrestling at UCD.
“Plaintiffs participated in high school wrestling and chose to attend UCD because it offered them the opportunity to participate in wrestling while in college,” continued the court, quoting from the complaint. “Arezou Mansourian and Christine Wing-Si Ng filled out the NCAA and UCD paperwork necessary for intercollegiate athletics, completed the weight certification requirements for intercollegiate wrestling, and participated in UCD’s wrestling program for about 2 years. As varsity wrestlers, plaintiffs received benefits such as medical and athletic training services, laundry services, academic tutoring services, strength and conditioning coaching, wrestling coaching, insurance, access to the weight room, and access to varsity facilities. Lauren Mancuso was recruited to wrestle for UCD and was awarded an athletic scholarship. She enrolled, filled out the necessary paperwork, and received the required certifications to participate in intercollegiate wrestling. Shortly thereafter, however, defendants eliminated women from UCD’s wrestling program, and Mancuso was denied her scholarship.”
After the decision was made to shutter the program, the plaintiffs met with the defendants and claimed that the action constituted illegal sex discrimination. The plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education in the spring of 2001. Afterward, the defendants agreed to rescind the No Females Directive and to allow women to participate in wrestling.
Based on the latter decision, the plaintiffs returned to the wrestling team. According to the complaint, however, the new coach “did not support women wrestlers and failed to coach them or treat them like the male wrestlers.”
Further, “the defendants informed plaintiffs that to participate in wrestling they would have to be part of a mixed gender team and would have to beat the men at their weight class under men’s collegiate-style rules, even though the women had previously only participated as part of a women’s wrestling program (not a mixed gender team) using international freestyle wrestling rules. Plaintiffs again complained, but the defendants refused and continue to refuse to remedy the situation and to provide women’s wrestling opportunities.
“As a result of the defendants’ actions,” according to the complaint, “the plaintiffs could not attend wrestling practice, could not use the wrestling facilities or weight room, lost their laundry benefits, lost their insurance they received as wrestling athletes, were banned from receiving instruction from the UCD coaching staff, and were denied athletic training and other medical benefits they received as UCD wrestlers. Plaintiffs also lost the academic credit associated with UCD wrestling athletes, and were denied early class registration.”
On December 18, 2003, Mansourian, Mancuso and Ng sued the Board of Regents of the University of California; the Chancellor of the University, Larry Vanderhoef; the Athletic Director at the University, Greg Warzecka; Associate Athletic Directors of the University, Pam Gill-Fisher and Lawrence Swanson; and former Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs, Robert Franks, alleging various Title IX, state law and Constitutional violations.
They asserted six claims for relief: (1) violation of Title IX based on unequal opportunities; (2) violation of Title IX based on unequal financial assistance; (3) retaliation in violation of Title IX; (4) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (5) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act; and (6) violation of public policy.
After numerous motions and orders, including review and remand by the Ninth Circuit, only two claims for relief remained: “ (1) a claim by individual plaintiffs against the University for violation of Title IX arising out of the alleged failure to provide equal athletic opportunities for women; and (2) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim by individual plaintiffs against the individual defendants for violation of the Equal Protection Clause arising out of the alleged intentional discrimination against plaintiffs or deliberate indifference to a known violation of plaintiffs’ rights.”
On December 8, 2010, the court granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the claims were time-barred. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that “(1) (the) elimination of wrestling opportunities in 2000-2001; and (2) (the) implementation of a policy that required them to wrestle-off against men in 2001 … were part and parcel of the defendants’ systemic discrimination against the plaintiffs and other women in the provisions of athletic opportunities, and that the defendants’ policy of exclusion was renewed each year.”
The court’s decision favoring the individual defendants turned on whether the acts were considered “discrete” in nature. “’(D)iscrete acts of discrimination or retaliation that occur outside the statutory time period’ are precluded.” National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 105, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002).
The court elaborated on the specific scenario, writing that the acts were “akin to a termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire. These two acts were finite, divisible instances of alleged discrimination that became actionable at the time they occurred. Because such acts occurred outside the applicable statute of limitations, the court held that these acts were time-barred and not independently actionable.”
Arezou Mansourian et al. v. Board of Regents of The University of California at Davis et al.; E.D. Calif.; NO. CIV. S 03-2591 FCD EFB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53637; 5/18/11
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Debra A. Smith, Noreen Ann Farrell, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, CA; James C. Sturdevant, Mark Thomas Johnson, Monique Olivier, LEAD ATTORNEYS, The Sturdevant Law Firm, San Francisco, CA; Kristen Marie Galles, LEAD ATTORNEY, Equity Legal, Alexandria, VA. (for defendants) Nancy Joan Sheehan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael William Po, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA; George A. Acero, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) James C. Sturdevant, Whitney Bryn Huston, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Sturdevant Law Firm, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA; Jora Thu Trang, Noreen Ann Farrell, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, CA; Kristen Marie Galles, LEAD ATTORNEY, Equity Legal, Alexandria, VA; Monique Olivier, LEAD ATTORNEY, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, San Francisco, CA.
For Lauren Mancuso, Christine Wing-Si Ng, Plaintiff: James C. Sturdevant, Whitney Bryn Huston, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Sturdevant Law Firm, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA; Jora Thu Trang, Noreen Ann Farrell, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, CA; Kristen Marie Galles, LEAD ATTORNEY, Equity Legal, Alexandria, VA; Monique Olivier, LEAD ATTORNEY, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, San Francisco, CA; Nancy Joan Sheehan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Porter Scott, PC, Sacramento, CA.
For Nancy Nien-Li Chiang, Plaintiff: James C. Sturdevant, Whitney Bryn Huston, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Sturdevant Law Firm, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA; Kristen Marie Galles, LEAD ATTORNEY, Equity Legal, Alexandria, VA; Monique Olivier, LEAD ATTORNEY, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier [*2] LLP, San Francisco, CA; Nancy Joan Sheehan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Porter Scott, PC, Sacramento, CA; Noreen Ann Farrell, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, CA.
For Regents of the University of California, University of California at Davis, Lawrence Vanderhoef, also known as Larry -, Greg Warzecka, Pam Gill-Fisher, Robert Franks, Lawrence Swanson, Defendants: David Pontus Eugene Burkett, LEAD ATTORNEY, George A. Acero, Michael William Pott, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA; Nancy Joan Sheehan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Porter Scott, PC, Sacramento, CA.
