Federal Court Rules UC Davis in Violation of Title IX
On Wednesday, US District Court Judge Frank Damrell of Sacramento ruled that the University of California at Davis failed to allow women students equal opportunities to play college sports and violated Title IX, a law passed in 1972 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all levels of education. Judge Damrell wrote in his decision, "UC Davis did not have a continuing practice of program expansion at the time plaintiffs were students....When an institution loses over 60 opportunities in two years and never fully regains all of those opportunities over the next four years, such an institution cannot be held to be Title IX compliant."
Nevertheless, Judge Damrell stated that there was no evidence that the defendants in the case, the university officials, "deliberately discriminated" against the plaintiffs and therefore his decision would place "severe limitations on the damages these plaintiffs may recover." Arezou Mansourian, Christine Ng, and Lauren Mancuso filed the lawsuit ten years ago after they were not permitted to sign up for varsity wrestling.
Noreen Farrell, Managing Attorney at Equal Rights Advocates who represented the plaintiffs, stated, "The young women who brought this suit courageously sought enforcement of Title IX, a law which was passed nearly 40 years ago to ensure that young women and men across the country have equal educational opportunities, including in athletics. As this Court's decision reflects, schools such as UC Davis must make gender equity a priority. Generations of young women depend on it."
Media Resources: San Francisco Chronicle 8/5/11; New York Times 8/4/11; Equal Rights Advocates 8/3/11
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. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .