The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling of a district court and found that a California school district did not fully and effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of its female student athletes in violation of Title IX.
The dispute began to surface in 2007 when the parents and the female plaintiffs alleged that Castle Park High School (CPHS) and the Sweetwater Union High School District, by extension, were violating the gender equity law.
Among the areas of inequity were: “practice and competitive facilities; locker rooms; training facilities; equipment and supplies; travel and transportation; coaches and coaching facilities; scheduling of games and practice times; publicity; and funding,” according to the plaintiffs.
Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant “failed to provide female students with equal athletic participation opportunities, despite their demonstrated athletic interest and abilities to participate in athletics.”
At the time, the district court seemed to give strong credence to one of the plaintiffs’ experts, Donna Lopiano, an attorney and former head of the Women’s Sports Foundation.
“On May 9, 2008, Lopiano conducted an on-site inspection at CPHS,” wrote the court. “In conducting a comprehensive Title IX evaluation of CPHS’s athletic program and facilities, Lopiano also reviewed documents produced by defendants and deposition testimony. Lopiano’s evaluation used the Title IX analysis set forth in the Policy Interpretation and Investigator’s Manual.
“At trial, Lopiano testified that she found wide-spread Title IX equal treatment and benefits violations at CPHS. Equal treatment and benefits claims allege sex-based differences in the schedules, equipment, coaching, and other factors affecting participants in athletics. The court noted that while Lopiano’s testimony was challenged, her methodology and conclusions were uncontroverted.”
Thus, the court concluded that “the balance of hardships weighs firmly in plaintiffs’ favor. The inequalities demonstrated at trial should have been rectified years ago by the district…plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. Defendants are required to comply with Title IX in all aspects of its athletic programs and activities….”
On appeal, the school district urged the appellate court to reverse all the district court’s rulings, advancing what one of the plaintiff’s attorneys claimed was “a novel, wholly unsupported approach to the way Title IX is applied to determine compliance with its mandate to provide equal participation opportunities to girls.” The panel of judges rejected the argument.
The panel also affirmed the lower court’s finding that the school district retaliated against the class of female athletes when it fired their softball coach and took other adverse actions against them.
According to the appellate court, the student plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring their Title IX retaliation claim arising from the firing of the softball coach. Further, it determined that the district court did not clearly err when it found that: (1) plaintiffs established a prima facie case of Title IX retaliation; and (2) Sweetwater’s purported non-retaliatory reasons for firing the coach were pretextual excuses for unlawful retaliation.
The panel held, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting permanent injunctive relief to plaintiffs on their Title IX retaliation claim.
In summary, the appellate court “rejected Sweetwater’s attempt to relitigate the merits of its case. Title IX levels the playing fields for female athletes. In implementing this important principle, the district court committed no error.”
Attorneys of Record: (for Defendants-Appellants) Paul V. Carelli, IV (argued), Daniel R. Shinoff, and Patrice M. Coady, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC, San Diego, California. (for Plaintiffs-Appellees) Elizabeth Kristen (argued), Robert Borton, and Kim Turner, Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center, San Francisco, California; Vicky L. Barker and Cacilia Kim, California Women’s Law Center, Los Angeles, California; Joanna S. McCallum and Erin Witkow, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles, California. (for Amicus Curiae United States of America) Erin H. Flynn (argued), United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section; Philip H. Rosenfelt, Deputy General Counsel; Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General; Vanessa Santos, United States Department of Education Office of the General Counsel; Dennis J. Dimsey and Holly A. Thomas, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section. (for Amicus Curiae National Women’s Law Center, et al.) Fatima Goss Graves, Neena K. Chaudhry, and Valarie Hogan, National Women’s Law Center, Washington, D.C.; Lauren B. Fletcher and Anant K. Saraswat, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Megan Barbero, Dina B. Mishra, and Brittany Blueitt Amadi, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C. (for Amicus Curiae Women’s Sports Foundation, et al.)Kristen Galles, Equity Legal, Alexandria, Virginia; Nancy Hogshead-Makar, Women’s Sports Foundation, Jacksonville, Florida.
Veronica Ollier et al. v. Sweetwater Union High School District et al.; 9th Cir.; No. 12-56348, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18020; 9/19/14
