A panel of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges reinstated a Title IX lawsuit yesterday against the University of California, Davis. The suit was originally filed in 2003 by three female wrestlers after they were forced to compete against men in the same weight class starting after the 2000-2001 academic year.
The case was originally thrown out on legal grounds by US District Judge Frank Damrell Jr., who found that athletes are not entitled to financial damages if the university is not given notice of the athlete's intent to sue or opportunity to remedy potential Title IX violations, according to the Sacramento Bee.
In the appeals court opinion, the judges found that Davis did not need notice of its own decisions regarding changes to women's wrestling and should have been regularly assessing its own Title IX compliance and reporting to the US Department of Education. The judges ruled that Davis' actions and policies in women's athletics requires jury review. They wrote that since the incident with women's wrestling, "the number of women playing intercollegiate athletics [at Davis] dropped sharply...Meanwhile, in the 10 years since UCD last added a significant number of female varsity slots, the number of female students at UCD grew by 35 percent." Spokespeople for Davis assert that the school is in compliance with Title IX.
Noreen Farrell, a lawyer representing the athletes, told Capital Public Radio that "what happened was the university required them to have wrestle-offs, so compete against young men in their weight-class in order to have a slot on the team. And so in the course of trying to compete against men for slots on the team of course they were eliminated. They couldn't compete against men." According to Court House News, the women athletes then lost their scholarships, academic credits, and varsity benefits.
Former Davis wrestling coach Michael Burch was awarded a $725,000 settlement in 2007 after he alleged that Davis failed to renew his contract in retaliation for speaking out when the women's wrestling team was cut. A 2005 US Supreme Court ruling in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education found that those who are the victims of retaliation for drawing attention to Title IX violations can sue under Title IX.
Title IX is the landmark federal legislation that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, including athletics.
Media Resources: Feminist Daily News 1/24/07; Court House News 2/8/10; Capital Public Radio 2/8/10; Sacramento Bee 2/9/10
10/31/2014 Federal Judge Exempts Another Catholic University from Birth Control Coverage - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Ave Maria University, a Catholic university in Florida, does not have to comply with federal rules meant to ensure that covered employees can exercise their right to obtain birth control at no cost.
The Affordable Care Act requires all new health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives - such as the pill, emergency contraceptives, and IUDs - without charging co-pays, deductibles or co-insurance. . . .
10/31/2014 Women of Color in Tennessee Are United in Opposition to Amendment 1 - Just days before the general election in Tennessee, a coalition of community leaders, clergy, and advocates led a press conference encouraging women of color to vote no on Amendment 1, a dangerous and far-reaching measure on the state's ballot.
SisterReach, a grassroots organization focused on "empowering, organizing, and mobilizing women and girls in the community around their reproductive and sexual health to make informed decisions about themselves," organized the press conference "to call attention to the unique concerns Black and poor communities throughout Shelby County and across the state of Tennessee face on a daily basis" and to emphasize how the upcoming election "could further limit [black women's] reproductive, economic, political, and social autonomy."
"We assemble today to impress upon black women and women of color, many of whom are heads of households, to get out and vote," said SisterReacher Founder and CEO Cherisse Scott at the event.
SisterReach has been educating voters about the particularly dangerous impact of Amendment 1 on women of color. . . .
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .