A district judge from the Central District of California has let stand a plaintiff’s claim that she suffered discrimination and other adverse actions in response to her allegations that the school district in which she was enrolled violated Title IX. However, it dismissed the claims of the girl’s mother, the co-plaintiff, since she wasn’t subject to the retaliation.
The court provided the following background:
Chelsea Jones attended Beverly Hills High School from 2005 to 2009. She tried out for the varsity girls’ basketball team in 2005 and 2006, but did not make the team. Jones claimed that less qualified girls did, some from different racial and religious backgrounds. Her mother, Mary Jones, did not allow her to try out for the team in her junior and senior years because she was worried that, if Chelsea did not make the team, again, she might be harmed emotionally.
As with basketball, Chelsea did not make the varsity softball team in 2005 and 2006, either. She did, however, make the team in 2007. Although she was on the team, she did not play in several games in the beginning of the season because, according to the plaintiffs, the coach allowed other, less qualified Jewish girls to play instead of Chelsea, who is Christian.
Beginning in 2005, Mary complained to the basketball and softball coaches, as well as to the defendant Beverly Hills Unified School District, that the girls’ teams were not treated the same as the boys’ teams. She complained, for example, that the girls’ teams had fewer coaches and that the coaches that they had were less qualified than the boys’ coaches. She also complained that the girls’ teams had faulty equipment and were forced to play on a softball field that was not as nice as the boys’ and was next to an oil well, which emitted noxious fumes that affected the girls. Chelsea and her mom, the co-plaintiff, alleged that, as a result of these complaints, Chelsea was denied a spot on the girls’ basketball team.
They sued for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (Title IX), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI), naming the school district and several members of the school board as defendants. Specifically, they claimed that “the school district did not provide equal treatment for female athletes and that, after Mary complained of the unequal treatment, the school district retaliated against Chelsea by not allowing her to play on the varsity basketball team. Chelsea alleges that she was subjected to unequal treatment in violation of Title IX when less qualified girls made the varsity basketball team instead of her. She also alleges that she was denied a position on the varsity basketball team, and playing time on the varsity softball team, because of her race and religion. In addition to her claims about the teams, Chelsea brings a number of other § 1983 claims, alleging that the school district violated her rights under the First, Fourth, and Thirteenth Amendments.”
The defendant school district moved to dismiss the claims, noting that the plaintiffs have “failed to comply with the court’s previous orders to provide a concise statement of their claims for relief.”
The court first determined that Mary Jones, the mom, lacks standing to pursue an equal treatment claim under Title IX, since she is “outside the class of persons Title IX was intended to protect.” Mary Jones’ other claim, which centered on retaliation because of a Title IX similarly failed, though for a slightly different reason – she was not a victim of retaliation
Turning to Chelsea Jones’s § 1983 claims – the school’s unequal treatment of the girls violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause – the court found that this, too, should be dismissed, since “the School District or the school board members in their official capacity … are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Dittman v. Cal., 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999).”
The court also sided with the defendants on Chelsea Jones’ claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender when the varsity girls’ basketball coach chose less experienced girls to play on the team.
“This claim is not actionable under Title IX. In order to bring an action for discrimination under Title IX, Plaintiff must allege that she was treated differently than the boys, not other girls. See Mansourian, 594 F.3d 1095, 2010 WL 430944. Title IX does not apply to claims that the girls’ basketball coach picked lesser-qualified basketball players to play on the girls’ basketball team.” As a result, the court dismissed Chelsea’s Title IX claim with prejudice.
Chelsea did get some relief when the court determined that she had “properly pleaded a gender discrimination claim under Title IX, i.e., that the girls’ softball team was treated less favorably than the boys’ teams. See Mansourian, 594 F.3d 1095, 2010 WL 430944; and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(2), (6), and (7). Further, this claim is not barred under the Eleventh Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1). Therefore, Chelsea may proceed on her discrimination claim (Claim No. 7) under Title IX.”
The court also favored Chelsea’s own Title IX retaliation claim. While similar to the claim her mother’s, Chelsea alleged that she was the target of the retaliation. She claims that she did not make the basketball team because the school was retaliating against her for her mother’s complaints. This constitutes “a materially adverse action sufficient to support a retaliation claim.” See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2006).
The court found for Chelsea and her race discrimination claim, pursuant to Title VI, concluding that she had “properly pleaded” the claim. “To plead a violation of Title VI, a plaintiff need only ‘allege that the defendant is engaging in discrimination.’ Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).”
Mary Jones, et al. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, et al.; C.D. Cal.; Case No. WD CV 08-7201-JFW (PJW), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28657; 3/24/10
Attorneys of Record: (for defendant) Gary R Gibeaut, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gibeaut Mahan and Briscoe, Los Angeles, CA.
