By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Senior Writer, and Professor, Sports Media, Ithaca College, staurows@ithaca.edu
In honor of the 50th anniversary of the enactment of Title IX in June of 2022, the University of Oregon (UO) athletics department announced that it was launching a year-long fundraising campaign under the umbrella of its Women in Flight program. The goal was to raise $9 million to enhance the ‘world-class experience” women athletes have in the program (Duck Athletic Fund, 2022). Reflective of Oregon’s connections with the Nike brand, the campaign was marketed with the tag “Go Do Anything” (a term credited to the mother of the Alexis (Cross) Smith, the director of the fund). The campaign featured among its fundraising efforts the auction of a specially designed shoe, called the Women in Flight Jordan 1 Mids, exclusive to the occasion (Go Ducks, 2022). In April of 2023, the campaign report chronicled that at the conclusion of the campaign in December of 2022, over $15 million had been raised with some of the money going immediately to facility upgrades to Pape Field, the home to Oregon’s women’s soccer and lacrosse teams, and “The Jake”, a facility that supports both men’s and women’s golf. Longer term, the money raised was scheduled to endow women’s athletic scholarships, support annual programs, and go to specific women’s teams (Women in Flight, 2023).
As promising of a picture as that painted of the University of Oregon’s commitment to Title IX, an investigative report published in The Oregonian in July of 2023 found troubling conditions in the women’s beach volleyball program that raised Title IX red flags, including the lack of athletic scholarships, inadequate facilities and funding, and health and safety concerns (Crepea, 2023). In December of 2023, University of Oregon women athletes in the sports of beach volleyball (BV) and the club sports of rowing filed a class action Title IX lawsuit alleging sweeping patterns of sex discrimination in the program that rendered them second-class citizens in their treatment, access to athletic scholarships, and access to participation opportunities. Remedies sought include an order finding the University of Oregon in violation of Title IX, an injunction barring the University from continuing to discriminate against women athletes, and compensatory, nominal, and other monetary damages for the harms the Plaintiffs are alleged to have experienced (Schroeder et al. v. University of Oregon, 2023).
In response, the University of Oregon filed three motions in July of 2024 to dismiss or limit several of the claims made by the Plaintiffs. In an opinion and order issued on April 4, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs on the point of standing regarding damages due to deprivation from unequal allocation of athletically related financial aid. Addressing the issue that “Plaintiffs had the burden of establishing an ‘injury in fact’”, McShane noted that the Plaintiffs alleged that men athletes were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars more in athletic aid that negatively affected members of women’s BV who were allocated no athletic scholarships. Additionally, women athletes at Oregon “received a smaller financial aid award” because of decisions made by UO administrators to “allocate ‘a disproportionately small pool [of financial aid] for female varsity student-athletes” (p. 7). Responding to UO’s position that the Court would take on the role ordinarily assumed by a coach or athletic director in allocating athletic scholarship money, McShane wrote, “The Court merely takes as true Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were highly qualified competitive volleyball players who were ready and able to compete for and receive financial aid that would have been awarded to them but for UO’s discrimination” (p. 8). Similar reasoning was applied to the issue of causation, where “The same allegations that establish Plaintiffs’ injury also establish the Defendant’s alleged Title IX violations caused that injury” (p. 8). Turning to UO’s position that the injuries alleged by the Plaintiffs were not redressable, McShane found that “At this stage, the only question is whether Plaintiffs allege an injury that compensatory damages would redress, and Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a denial of scholarship funds that caused a pecuniary injury” (p. 9). Regarding the question of whether the Court has the power to award the damages requested, UO argued that “because no court has awarded damages for an unequal financial aid claim before, this Court is powerless to do so”. Citing a precedential decision in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, Inc (1992), McShane noted, “a damages remedy is available for an action brought to enforce Title IX” (p. 9).
UO’s efforts to render claims from Plaintiffs who left the university as moot was met with a determination that the “inherently transitory” exception to mootness applied. Beyond the fact that “Defendant has resisted and delayed Plaintiffs’ discovery efforts, and the Court has granted Defendant’s motion to stay discovery while ruling on these Motions”, the deadline for the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is scheduled for June 12, 2025.
In supporting its motion for a judgement on the pleadings, UO contended that the complaint proceeded from an improper comparison between women’s BV and football. McShane acknowledged some vulnerabilities in the Plaintiffs’ representation of the relationship between the two sports. However, allegations encompassed more than that comparison. As stated in the opinion outlining the reasoning to dismiss the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, McShane wrote, “Although the Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ Complaint relies too heavily on a comparison of the highest-funded male team with what appears to be the lowest-funded female team to make its case, Plaintiffs’ allegations are vast enough that they contain sufficient material to put UO on notice of program-wide claims” (p. 19). Differences between the two programs may be warranted, however, the “lavish treatment of football players is not wholly irrelevant” (p. 21). Further, “Plaintiffs include allegations about the men’s and women’s programs overall that insulate their Complaint from dismissal”. Those allegations include men athletes receiving more favorable treatment in the areas of equipment and supplies; preferential scheduling of facilities; better provisions for travel and per diem allowances; better coaching and academic support; better compensation for coaches of men’s teams; better medical and training services; superior treatment in terms of marketing and promotion on social media and the UO’s website, and better funding and support for recruiting. On the specific matter of publicity and lower payouts to women athletes from agreements entered into with 3rd party entities that compensate athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL), UO argued that those opportunities were not relevant to a claim of unequal treatment because they were offered by third parties. McShane noted, “…the Plaintiffs do not challenge the third-party NIL contracts themselves; they merely allege that one of the ways Plaintiffs are harmed by UO’s discrimination is by receiving less NIL-related training, opportunities, and income. Those ill effects are not irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claim” (p. 24).
Finally, UO moved for summary judgement, requesting that all claims that fell outside of the statute of limitations be dismissed. UO was seeking a one-year statute of limitations as provided for by an Oregon state law barring sex discrimination in schools. The Plaintiffs sought to have a six-year statute of limitations provision for breach of contract actions applied. In the end, McShane adopted a two-year statute of limitations under an Oregon personal injury law. In terms of when the statute of limitations started running, UO contended that for each claim, the clock started when an athlete arrived on campus. McShane characterized that argument as missing the mark. “Plaintiffs’ unequal treatment allegations are based on a pattern of conduct that pervades or pervaded their time as a student-athlete at UO. Making reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, that conduct may have been affected or even prescribed by funding decisions that were made anew before the start of each year” (p. 27).
The one issue where Judge McShane ruled in UO’s favor was on the question of whether former athletes have standing to seek equitable relief. While former athletes were found not to have standing, athletes competing on teams at the time the complaint was filed and who suffered redressable injuries have standing to pursue equitable relief for each claim.
Since this case was filed in December of 2023, some developments have occurred. First, plans for the building of a beach volleyball facility on campus were in motion at the time the lawsuit was filed. The project, however, was delayed with a projected date of completion now set for September of 2025 (Fox, 2025). Second, a multi-million-dollar 140,000 square foot indoor practice facility for the football team is currently under construction. Proposed in the fall of 2021, the project required uprooting two practice fields and moving them south of their current location; re-routing the Leo Harris Parkway; and moving a city-owned parking lot to the east. The project also involved a deal with the City of Eugene for a land swap, with the UO trading eight acres for four acres of land owned by the city that was adjacent to the site where the practice facility will be built (McGuinness, 2025). Third, in August of 2024, UO also announced that it was awarding an athletic scholarship to a beach volleyball player, the first time that happened since the program started in 2013 (Krasnowski, 2024). Given the expanse of other issues raised, and the magnitude of the athletic scholarship shortfall for women athletes which is nearly $900,000 a year, it is expected that there will be more to come with this case as it moves forward to class certification.
References and Background Reading
Anthony, T. (2024, December 3). Investigations: UO construction delays prolong Title IX lawsuit from courts to court. The Daily Emerald. https://dailyemerald.com/156798/features/investigations-uo-construction-delays-prolong-title-ix-lawsuit-from-courts-to-court/
Crepea, J. (2023, July 22). Oregon Ducks beach volleyball players detail disparate treatment that experts say could violate Title IX. The Oregonian. https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2023/07/oregon-ducks-beach-volleyball-players-detail-disparate-treatment-that-experts-say-could-violate-title-ix.html
Crepea, J. (2025, April 6). Judge denies University of Oregon’s motions to dismiss Title IX lawsuit pertaining to beach volleyball, club rowing teams. The Oregonian. https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2025/04/judge-denies-university-of-oregons-motions-to-dismiss-title-ix-lawsuit-pertaining-to-beach-volleyball-club-rowing-teams.html
Duck Athletic Fund. (2022, June 23). “Go Do Anything” Campaign Marks Title IX Anniversary. Press release. https://goducks.com/news/2022/1/13/duck-athletic-fund-go-do-anything-campaign-marks-title-ix-anniversary
Fox, R. (2025, January 8). New UO beach volleyball court plans approved. The Daily Emerald. https://dailyemerald.com/158011/features/new-uo-beach-volleyball-court-plans-approved/
Go Ducks. (2022). Auction for Women in Flight Title IX Jordan 1 Mids. https://goducks.com/sports/2022/7/22/title-ix-shoes
Krasnowski, J. (2024, August 9). Eugene native Gwen Fife to join Oregon beach volleyball team. The Daily Emerald. https://dailyemerald.com/149409/uncategorized/eugene-native-gwen-fife-to-join-oregon-beach-volleyball-team/
McGuinness, H. (2025, January 10). What’s that construction by Autzen Stadium? The Register Guard. https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/local/2025/01/10/whats-that-construction-by-autzen-stadium-could-help-oregon-ducks/77415653007/
Ashley Schroeder et al. v. University of Oregon. United States District Court District of Oregon Eugene Division. Case No.: 6-23-cv-1806. (2023). https://www.baileyglasser.com/media/news/15171_University%20of%20Oregon%20Title%20IX%20Complaint.pdf
Ashley Schroeder et al. v. University of Oregon. United States District Court District of Oregon Eugene Division. Opinion and Order. Case No.: 6-23-cv-01556. (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-6_23-cv-01806/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-6_23-cv-01806-0.pdf
Wilk, N. (2023, October 8). Women athletes still plan to sue UO, despite planned new facility. KLCC.org. https://www.klcc.org/npr-sports/2023-10-08/women-athletes-still-plan-to-sue-uo-despite-planned-new-facility
Women in Flight. (2023, April 12). Over $15 Million Raised for WIF’s ‘Go Do Anything’ Campaign. Press release. https://goducks.com/news/2023/4/12/women-in-flight-over-15-million-raised-for-wifs-go-do-anything-campaign
University of Oregon site plans for new beach volleyball stadium. https://www.kezi.com/news/university-of-oregon-moves-forward-with-beach-volleyball-facility-development-plans/article_1254a256-631b-11ee-9962-c7d8004634bc.html
