Fifteen former women’s student-athletes at San Diego State University have reached a settlement with the school in a Title IX class action lawsuit alleging sex-based discrimination in athletics. Attorneys for the plaintiffs say it is the first agreement of its kind to include class-wide monetary damages for unequal athletic financial aid.
U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson of the Southern District of California approved the settlement, which requires the university to pay $300,000 in damages to the affected athletes and implement a series of reforms to bring its athletic programs into compliance with federal law.
The lawsuit, filed in 2022, alleged that the university violated Title IX by failing to provide equal athletic financial aid, treatment and benefits to female student-athletes, including members of the women’s rowing and track and field teams. Plaintiffs also claimed the school failed to provide equitable opportunities to participate in varsity athletics.
Under the terms of the settlement, San Diego State must hire an independent expert to conduct a gender equity review and develop a plan to address disparities. The agreement also requires the university to provide equal athletic financial aid and treatment for female athletes and to bring its athletic department into full compliance with Title IX by the 2026–27 academic year.
Title IX, enacted in 1972, prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded education programs, including athletics. Despite decades of enforcement and litigation, disparities in participation opportunities, financial aid and resources for female athletes continue to be challenged in courts across the country.
The case stands out because it resulted in class-wide damages tied specifically to unequal athletic financial aid, a remedy that has rarely been pursued and, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, had not previously been awarded in a Title IX athletics case.
“These women have made history,” said Arthur Bryant, lead counsel for the athletes. “This is the first school to pay class-wide damages to female athletes for discriminating against them in violation of Title IX. But it sure won’t be the last.”
The settlement follows earlier litigation in which the court allowed the case to proceed, rejecting the university’s motion for summary judgment. At that stage, the court found that former student-athletes could seek relief for past harm as well as for future discrimination affecting current and prospective athletes.
The plaintiffs were part of a proposed class that included current and former female athletes who alleged they were denied equal benefits and opportunities. The claims stemmed in part from disparities in scholarship funding, which can have significant financial and competitive implications for athletes.
In addition to monetary damages, the settlement’s structural provisions are intended to address systemic issues within the university’s athletic programs. The required gender equity review and resulting plan are expected to evaluate participation opportunities, scholarship allocations and overall treatment of male and female athletes.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said the case reflects broader challenges in college athletics as schools navigate financial and competitive pressures.
“At a time when college sports are changing, we hope this settlement sends a message to schools around the country that women are done accepting less than what Title IX requires—equity in all areas,” said Lori Bullock, co-counsel for the athletes. “Schools need to address these inequities now, not after female athletes file suit, and hopefully, paying damages will spur stronger compliance efforts throughout college athletics.”
The case underscores the continuing role of litigation in enforcing Title IX more than 50 years after the law’s passage. While federal regulators and institutions have developed compliance guidelines, courts remain a key forum for resolving disputes over whether schools are meeting their obligations.
The athletes involved included members of women’s rowing and track and field programs, along with other former student-athletes who joined the class action. They alleged that female athletes received less financial aid and fewer benefits than their male counterparts.
Although the settlement resolves the plaintiffs’ claims, it does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the university. Instead, it establishes a framework for future compliance while providing compensation for past disparities.
The case also highlights ongoing questions about how equity in collegiate athletics is measured, particularly in areas such as scholarship distribution and resource allocation. Under Title IX, schools must provide equitable opportunities and benefits, though they retain flexibility in how they achieve compliance.
Legal observers say the settlement could influence future Title IX litigation, particularly with respect to financial damages. By awarding compensation tied to past inequities in athletic aid, the agreement may encourage similar claims at other institutions.
At the same time, the requirement that San Diego State conduct a comprehensive review and implement corrective measures underscores the importance of institutional reform alongside monetary remedies.
The case will not proceed to trial, but its outcome may have broader implications for colleges and universities facing scrutiny over gender equity in athletics.
