Court Holds All Women Athletes Can Sue for Damages, Future Discrimination Can Be Barred
A federal judge from the Southern District of California has ruled that a Title IX lawsuit brought by plaintiffs suing San Diego State University can continue. The ruling, dismissing the school’s motion for summary judgment, was significant because it means that former student athletes can seek a court order protecting future student athletes.
The original lawsuit was filed on February 7, 2022, alleging SDSU engaged in intentional discrimination based on sex in its athletics programs in violation of Title IX.
The plaintiffs in the case claimed SDSU violated, and continues to violate, Title IX and its guiding regulations by (1) “depriving its female varsity student-athletes of equal athletic financial aid”; (2) “denying them equal athletic benefits and treatment”; and (3) “retaliating against them because some of them sued SDSU for violating Title IX.”
The plaintiffs sought to represent both a class of current and former SDSU female student-athletes whom they alleged have been harmed by SDSU’s discriminatory practices.
Notably, however, the court rejected SDSU’s argument that because the case had already taken so long that the women are no longer student-athletes, that they could not seek a court order stopping the school from discriminating in the future. The court held that, if the case went forward as a class action, those who were student-athletes when the case was filed could also seek a court order protecting future student-athletes.
“This is a huge victory for the women athletes and everyone who cares about stopping sex discrimination at SDSU and nationwide,” said lead counsel for the women, Arthur Bryant of Bailey Glasser, LLP, in Oakland, CA. “The school has cheated its female student-athletes out of millions of dollars of equal athletic financial aid in the past few years alone—and it still hasn’t changed its ways. Now, all the women who decided to stand up and fight can make SDSU pay. And the school won’t be able to keep discriminating in the future just because it’s delayed judgment day so far. “
“This critical ruling confirms what we’ve said all along—these brave women deserve their day in court to hold SDSU accountable for its past discriminatory behavior and to prevent it from engaging in discriminatory behavior in the future,” said Joshua Hammack of Bailey Glasser, LLP in Washington, DC, who took the lead in briefing and arguing the issues. “This order ensures Plaintiffs can pursue both goals in court, which is an important victory for them, for justice, and for women everywhere.”
The full opinion can be viewed at: https://www.baileyglasser.com/media/news/15126_9.15.2023%20Order%20on%20SDSU%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
