A federal judge from the District of Delaware has granted an application for attorney’s fees and costs filed by a group of female student athletes, who successfully sued Delaware State University (DSU) for intentionally discriminating against them in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88.
The lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2010 by more than a dozen members of DSU’s women’s equestrian team on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in response to DSU’s decision to shutter its women’s equestrian team at the conclusion of the 2009-10 academic year. The plaintiffs alleged that this constituted a failure to provide female athletes at DSU equal opportunities to participate in varsity collegiate athletics.
On December 20, 2010, upon agreement of the parties, the court approved a proposed Consent Decree, which required DSU to achieve proportionality (within two and one-half percentage points) between the male/female ratio of its undergraduate student enrollment and the male/female ratio of its varsity student athletes.
The Consent Decree further required that DSU provide documentation relating to both athletic participation and recruiting funding at specified intervals in order to enable the plaintiffs to monitor DSU’s compliance with its obligations.
The required documentation consisted of: (1) NCAA eligibility and clearance forms for all athletes; (2) squad lists for each of the men’s and women’s varsity athletic teams; (3) all squad list change forms adding/deleting student athletes to a squad; (4) all individual student-athlete competition, hardship, and red shirt reports; (5) all individual student-athlete season competition reports; (6) a record of student-athlete attendance at all varsity team practices; (7) a current spreadsheet of all DSU student-athletes on roster; and (8) the full-time undergraduate student enrollment numbers by gender. DSU must also provide documentation of recruiting budgets, including: (1) the full-time undergraduate student enrollment numbers by gender; (2) amounts allocated to each of the men’s and women’s varsity athletic teams for recruiting for the current academic year; (3) amounts expended by each of the men’s and women’s varsity athletic teams for recruiting in the previous academic year; and (4) total line item budgets for each of the men’s and women’s varsity athletic teams for the current academic year. DSU’s reporting obligations commenced at the start of the 2010-11 academic year, and continue until one academic year following the first academic year in which DSU achieves compliance with Prong 1 of Title IX’s participation requirement.
In conjunction with the Consent Decree, the court granted the plaintiffs’ uncontested motion for attorney fees, awarding $267,373.04 in fees and $21,575.90 in costs to Plaster Greenberg, PC.; $192,919.97 in fees and $440.26 in costs to Women’s Law Project; and $15,149.20 in fees and $225.74 in costs to Pinckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC. These fees were expected to cover the fees and costs accrued until the Consent Decree.
But the plaintiffs’ attorney also wanted to be made whole on costs associated with the “enforcement” of the decree. Among those tasks were:
reviewing and analyzing extensive documentation relating to the members of the 16 men’s and women’s teams in existence since the Consent Decree was approved to determine whether each of the more than 300 athletes identified annually by DSU meets the definition of “participant” under Title IX for two years;
examining NCAA eligibility status for each athlete of each team, including eligibility status; squad list inclusion, addition, and deletion; injury and scholarship status; roster inclusion; competition participation; and regular attendance at practices and other team activities;
reviewing and analyzing documentation to determine whether an athlete is an athletic participant;
cross-checking to determine how many Title IX participants were on each varsity athletic team; and
determining who qualifies as a Title IX participant based on a calculation of practice attendance.
In terms of compensation, they sought $45,003.55 to the Women’s Law Project; $31,735.09 to Flaster/Greenberg; and $555.00 to Pinckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC.
DSU opposed this, leading to the instant opinion.
The defendants argued, first, “that the specific monitoring activities undertaken were not authorized by or within the scope of the Consent Decree. In this respect, DSU contends that the plaintiffs alleged that this constituted a failure to provide female athletes at DSU equal opportunities to participate in varsity collegiate athletics. The plaintiffs’ monitoring efforts were unreasonable. Alternatively, DSU argues that the fees are unreasonable in that the lodestar amount should be reduced.”
The judge was not persuaded.
“The detailed reporting obligations contained in the Consent Decree were necessary to protect the plaintiffs’ rights,” the court wrote. “Hence, thorough monitoring by the plaintiffs’ counsel to ensure DSU’s compliance with the reporting obligations imposed by the Consent Decree was necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Consent Decree. It was not unreasonable for the plaintiffs to view these monitoring tasks as something other than menial or ministerial responsibilities and, therefore, to rely on counsel — and counsel’s expertise in this area and experience with this litigation — to ensure DSU’s compliance. The plaintiffs’ requested fees are not unreasonable.”
Caroline Foltz et al. v. Delaware State University; D. Del.; C.A. No. 10-149-LPS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137811; 9/30/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Joanne P. Pinckney, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pinckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC, Wilmington, DE; William J. Burnett, LEAD ATTORNEY, Flaster/Greenburg P.C., Wilmington, DE; Abbe F. Fletman, Terry L. Fromson, PRO HAC VICE. (for defendant) Kathleen Furey McDonough, LEAD ATTORNEY, Sarah Elizabeth DiLuzio, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE.
