A magistrate judge from the Southern District of California has endorsed a proposal that would remedy a Title IX violation in a school district by requiring that the school district makes it a priority to build a girls’ softball field the “right” way and in a prompt fashion.
On July 26, 2007, a district judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had established a likelihood of success on the merits of their Title IX claim against the defendant, the Ramona Unified School District. The injunction required that the district provide facilities for the Ramona High School Girls’ Softball teams on the high school campus of equal quality to that of the fields of the boys’ baseball teams.
Specifically, the court required the district provide the softball teams with facilities that give the girls’ teams the same benefits the boys’ teams have enjoyed for years, including access to locker rooms, medical and training services, and playing fields of equal quality starting with the 2008 season. The court ordered the parties to work together in good faith to arrive at a plan to remedy the situation and submit a joint proposal, or separate proposals as necessary, to the court by September 14, 2007.
Multiple proposals were submitted. But many of them would be identified as dangerous because the field was too close to each other, or the sun would be in the players’ eyes.
“Time constraints, space limitations and competing interests do not allow the District to construct the perfect solution to this problem,” wrote the court. “The Court has ordered the District to remedy the disparity in treatment the Girls’ Softball Program has endured for some years, before the start of the 2008 season. It does not, however, seem to be in the best interests of the softball program to compromise the construction and layout of this long-anticipated, dedicated Girls’ Varsity Softball field, simply to meet the 2008 season start. Best efforts should be employed to have a field ready for the season opener, but in the long-term interests of the program, building it right is more important than building it fast. Additionally, construction of the new fields should not be at the sacrifice of other Ramona High school athletic and physical education programs.”
Consequently, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Court adopt the following plan to implement the injunctive relief ordered by the Court:
“1. The District construct a dedicated Girls’ Varsity Softball field, in the current location of the Boys’ JV/Freshman Baseball field, oriented in the same direction as the dedicated Boys’ Varsity Baseball field and with all the comparable amenities as the Boys’ Varsity Baseball field. Said construction to be completed as soon as possible. Varsity Girls’ Softball will be played on the OPMS (middle school) field until the dedicated field is completed.
“2. The District renovate the OPMS field, resolving the drainage, grading and irrigation problems, and install a Girls’ Softball field, with at least one batting cage, at that location for the Girls’ JV/Freshman Softball program. Said renovation to be completed by February 2008.
“3. The Boys’ Varsity and JV Baseball teams share the dedicated Boys’ Varsity Baseball field until such time as the District can construct a new JV field on the 40 acres held by the District. At the option of the District, it may proceed with its plan to rotate the Boys’ Freshman Baseball Team into the shared program with Varsity and JV. Alternatively, the District may find other accommodations for the Boys’ Freshman Baseball team, which may include construction of a non-dedicated field in the northeast corner of the campus property or off-site accommodations until additional fields can be constructed.”
Karen R. Hess, et al. v. Ramona Unified School District, et al; S. D. Cal; Civil No. 07cv00049 W (CAB); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67687; 9/13/07
Attorneys or Record: (for plaintiffs) Elizabeth J Arleo of Arleo Law Firm, Ramona, CA; Leonard B Simon, The Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon, San Diego, CA; and Julie M Kiehne-Lamkin, Ramona, CA. (for defendants) Daniel R Shinoff, Gil Abed, Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz, San Diego, CA.
