Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

February-09-10

Court Renews Title IX Suit Against UC Davis

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


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .