Ed Law Briefly: Female Athletes in California High School File Class Action Lawsuit Citing District’s Athletic Inequalities

RCEd Commentary

Background: Female members of Castle Park High School’s (CPHS) softball team filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all female athletes at the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) in Chula Vista, California. The students claimed bias against girls who participate in, plan to participate in, or who were prevented from participating, in student athletic activities at CPHS. The lawsuit says discriminatory treatment included differences in locker rooms, training facilities, equipment, travel, transportation, coaches, scheduling of games and practice times.

The lawsuit also alleges that SUHSD failed to provide female students with equal athletic participation opportunities. Therefore, participation in sports was severely limited, and interested girls were effectively discouraged from participating in sports in the district.

Finally, the suit alleges that SUHSD violated Title IX when it dismissed CPHS softball coach, Chris Martinez, after he complained to school officials about inequalities for girls in the high school’s athletic programs.

Issue:  What level of athletic offerings between boys and girls is necessary for schools to comply with federal law? Do the facilities, lockers, scheduling, and other peripherals have to be the same? As well, if a coach is fired for complaining, is that within the school’s right or does that, too, violate Title IX?

Legal Principles: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

The softball players allege that the district failed to comply with Title IX’s “effective accommodation” requirement by not fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the high school’s female athletes. Additionally, the lawsuit wraps in a Title IX claim for the coach, explaining he was retaliated against and was fired for sticking up for them. 

Outcome:  The Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that SUHSD violated both the “effective accommodation” provision and a U.S. Supreme Court case against retaliation under Title IX.  The court used a three-prong test to reach its conclusion.  An educational institution complies with Title IX if it satisfies any one of the three elements:

          1. Are athletic participation opportunities for male and female students provided in numbers proportionate to their respective populations in the district?

          2. Have members of one sex been underrepresented among athletes, and can the school system show a history of expanding in response to increased demand for participation for that sex?

          3. If the district cannot demonstrate program expansion for the underrepresented sex, can it prove that the interests and abilities of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program?

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the SUHSD failed all three prongs of Title IX by not effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of its female athletes.  Moreover, the court held firing the coach was intentional discrimination in violation of Title IX. 

Lessons for Principals and Teachers:

• School districts need to be aware of potential Title IX violations, especially involving their school’s athletic programs.

• School officials need to recognize that Title IX applies to sex discrimination within any educational programs offered at public schools, not just sports.

• School officials need to use their power wisely, and not retaliate against an employee for speaking out against unfairness by sex and a possible Title IX violation.

Federal Law(s):
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681.

U.S. District Court for the 9th Circuit:
Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School District, No. 12-56348, (9th Cir. 2014).

_{Note: This information is not intended as legal advice. Federal and other court decisions can differ depending on what region of the country you live in. State laws also weigh in on certain issues. All cases are for educational purposes only, and meant to demonstrate how courts or administrative agencies have acted in specific instances as well as to provide information that can bolster the overall legal literacy of teachers and administrators. Local school attorneys can provide more detail about local law.}