Baylor University has settled one of the six lawsuits it is facing over its handling of sexual assaults. This lawsuit had a single plaintiff, a former student who said she was drugged, kidnapped, and raped in February 2015 at an off-campus party at what is known as the rugby house. The lawsuit, in part, accused Baylor of not properly handling her reporting of the incident. It also revealed what is now undeniable--that Baylor has an extremely dangerous culture and that has not effectively addressed the climate.
After initial contact with the Title IX office, the plaintiff found out--from that office--that multiple other women had reported sexual assaults at the rugby house. They worked with her for several weeks and then nothing. There was no hearing. She left Baylor after a failed appeal over a poor grade--due to her trauma from the rape.
Baylor had moved to have the lawsuit dismissed in October.
Details of the settlement were not released.
The school has settled with three other women who did not filed lawsuits. There are now five lawsuits pending against the university.
Showing posts with label settlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label settlement. Show all posts
Friday, July 07, 2017
Wednesday, July 06, 2016
Settlement at Tennessee
News broke this morning that there will be no trial (originally scheduled for spring 2018) in the Title IX lawsuit against the University of Tennessee. UT will pay just under $2.5 million to the eight women who brought the lawsuit.
As is the case in most settlements, the university admits no wrongdoing. Money for the settlement will be drawn from both central administration and athletics. Stories suggest that no taxpayer money will be used, but at a state university I wonder how easy it is to keep it all separated.
From the plantiffs' lawyer:
We are satisfied that, while universities everywhere struggle with these issues, the University of Tennessee has made significant progress in the way they educate and respond to sexual assault cases. My clients and I are also convinced that the University's leadership is truly committed to continue its exemplary efforts to create a model as it relates to sexual misconduct.
From UT Chancellor Jimmy Cheek:
Like many institutions, we are not perfect, but our goal is to continue to be the best we can be at creating awareness, educating and preventing discrimination and abuse in any form and to continue to be equally prepared when it does happen and to deal with it promptly, sensitively, fairly and effectively. We've come a long way in recent years, and we are working every day to be even better.
No one listed the measures UT has taken to ensure that Title IX is being correctly and effectively implemented.
ESPN has a list of the specific incidents here. But as a reminder, these date back to the mid-90s and involved UT athletes who were either not investigated or not punished for sexual assault.
As a wrap-up, I want to note the trends or similarities that these charges have with other cases we have covered.
1. Athletes have special protections. These manifested in the following ways in this case: not being investigated; found guilty but not punished or lightly punished; other entities intimidating victims discouraging them from filing complaints or charges (in this case it was teammates of perpetrators).
2. Passing the buck: In at least one case at UT, an offending athlete was found guilty, allowed to finish out his season and then transfer. Remember, the SEC passed a rule that prevents member schools from accepting transfer athletes who have histories of sexual assault. Apparently, they have no issue sending those students to non-SEC schools.
3. Female athletes as victims. Because tracking the intricacies of sexual assault is difficult--at best, we don't know how many perpetrators are athletes nor do we know are many victims are athletes and at what level they play. But UT is not the first time we have heard about male athletes at DI institutions assaulting female athletes with few repercussions (Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico). Keeping things in the "family" (i.e., athletics department) clearly has serious negative consequences. Female athletes are pressured not to report assaults; they are told things will be handled internally. In this case, that pressure was also exerted on a male athlete who attempted to come to the defense of one of the victims and was assaulted and called a traitor by Coach Butch Jones (Jones denies this.).
As is the case in most settlements, the university admits no wrongdoing. Money for the settlement will be drawn from both central administration and athletics. Stories suggest that no taxpayer money will be used, but at a state university I wonder how easy it is to keep it all separated.
From the plantiffs' lawyer:
We are satisfied that, while universities everywhere struggle with these issues, the University of Tennessee has made significant progress in the way they educate and respond to sexual assault cases. My clients and I are also convinced that the University's leadership is truly committed to continue its exemplary efforts to create a model as it relates to sexual misconduct.
From UT Chancellor Jimmy Cheek:
Like many institutions, we are not perfect, but our goal is to continue to be the best we can be at creating awareness, educating and preventing discrimination and abuse in any form and to continue to be equally prepared when it does happen and to deal with it promptly, sensitively, fairly and effectively. We've come a long way in recent years, and we are working every day to be even better.
No one listed the measures UT has taken to ensure that Title IX is being correctly and effectively implemented.
ESPN has a list of the specific incidents here. But as a reminder, these date back to the mid-90s and involved UT athletes who were either not investigated or not punished for sexual assault.
As a wrap-up, I want to note the trends or similarities that these charges have with other cases we have covered.
1. Athletes have special protections. These manifested in the following ways in this case: not being investigated; found guilty but not punished or lightly punished; other entities intimidating victims discouraging them from filing complaints or charges (in this case it was teammates of perpetrators).
2. Passing the buck: In at least one case at UT, an offending athlete was found guilty, allowed to finish out his season and then transfer. Remember, the SEC passed a rule that prevents member schools from accepting transfer athletes who have histories of sexual assault. Apparently, they have no issue sending those students to non-SEC schools.
3. Female athletes as victims. Because tracking the intricacies of sexual assault is difficult--at best, we don't know how many perpetrators are athletes nor do we know are many victims are athletes and at what level they play. But UT is not the first time we have heard about male athletes at DI institutions assaulting female athletes with few repercussions (Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico). Keeping things in the "family" (i.e., athletics department) clearly has serious negative consequences. Female athletes are pressured not to report assaults; they are told things will be handled internally. In this case, that pressure was also exerted on a male athlete who attempted to come to the defense of one of the victims and was assaulted and called a traitor by Coach Butch Jones (Jones denies this.).
Monday, March 14, 2016
Settlement at North Florida
Title IX news out of Florida late last week: a $1.25 million settlement in favor a dismissed female basketball coach.This case flew completely under the radar. News of the substantial settlement was the first we had heard of coach Mary Tappmeyer's claims of discrimination against the University of North Florida and only because friends-of-the-blog emailed us the press release. Since we have yet to write about it, here is the synopsis of Tappmayer's case:
She was dismissed from her position a year ago (March 2015). Her contract, which had been set to expire at that time, was not renewed. She had been the only women's basketball head coach in the program's history, which began in 1991. She alleged that the university fired her as retaliation for complaining about the inequitable conditions for female student athletes and made claims of sex discrimination as well. The university said she had a losing record and that every complaint about discrimination that Tappmeyer brought forward was investigated. These investigation never found that the coach's claims had any merit. Complaints included: academic exceptions (to university admissions requirements) for male basketball recruits but not female, a larger operating budget--including travel--on the men's side, and disparities in training, office, and locker room facilities. She got paid less, but claims the university held her to higher performance standards. Her lawsuit also included allegations that administrators spoke badly of her and her all-female coaching staff to student athletes, athletic department employees and donors and that they impeded her ability to coach and recruit.
So why is this case significant? One, it is a large settlement. This hints at the possibility that the university thought it would not have done better in court, though the statement from the university president stated that they settled to avoid extensive legal fees. And it is a large settlement for a case that got very little national attention and was underway for less than a year. Did the university just throw some money at this to make it go away quickly and quietly? Possibly. More on that theory later.
The second reason why this case deserves some additional analysis is because it shares characteristics with other cases we have seen. Tappmeyer did not report her allegations to the Title IX coordinator because she feared for her job. She went to the president's office instead where she was assured her position was safe. In other words, she knew that complaining within the department was dangerous for her. This is reminiscent of another Florida institution, Florida Gulf Coast University, where a group of female coaches anonymously sought help from outside the university to file a Title IX complaint about the inequitable treatment.
Sex discrimination rarely stands alone. In allegations about the culture of the department, some of which did not make it into Tappmeyer's lawsuit, she noted that Athletics Director Lee Moon engaged in racist and homophobic behavior. He did not want LGBT or black athletes recruited. Regarding the latter he was alleged to have said that audiences will not come out for an all-black team and encouraged coaches to recruit from the midwest. He wanted teams with female head coaches to have male assistants on staff, presumably to challenge the idea that the team was coached by lesbians. There are no people of color in head coaching positions on the men's side. Tappmeyer's replacement is a black man; he is the only Black person in a head coaching position.
Single axis discrimination is rare. We saw this at Penn State with the case of former women's basketball coach Rene Portland. The lawsuit by a dismissed player (which also ended in a settlement--terms undisclosed) alleged race, gender, sexual orientation discrimination. Penn State also used the internal investigation method and found no evidence of the race or gender discrimination. There is a lack of understanding about intersectional discrimination, which is part of the reason why allegations are not proven. But it exists and it contributes to the hostile climate in athletics departments.
Another similarity: discernible patterns. In addition to the racist comments and inequitable treatment, the UNF athletics department had a practice of firing female coaches and replacing them with male coaches, a la University of Iowa. Sometimes athletics directors who are in charge when the discrimination occurs are themselves fired often as a measure to demonstrate that the university is taking the claims seriously and attempting to change the offensive and discriminatory culture. Not at UNF where Moon remains in his position and supported by the administration.
This is also happening at Iowa where the university is standing solidly behind AD Gary Barta who, in addition to having his contract renewed, has just won an award for being the best athletic director!! Though the lawsuits are not yet settled at Iowa and it remains to be seen what happens to Barta, the announcement that the National Athletic Collegiate Directors Association chose him for the Under Armour Athletic Director of the Year Award was startling, to say the least. I realize that this is an aside. Perhaps it deserves its own post, but it certainly speaks to the culture that female coaches are dealing with not just at their institutions but at the national level. NACDA thinks that someone who is at the center of several lawsuits and a federal investigation about gender equity is the best athletic director in the country. I might worry about what is happening everywhere else, if I did not know that this award is the epitome of an old white boys club, let's look out for one another mentality. For a more thorough analysis of situation see this post. While Barta's recognition certainly seems to contradict some of NACDA's own criteria, Under Armour's involvement may be the thing that engenders more outrage about this situation. After all, UA is working very hard to win female athletes and fitness fans away from Nike. The signing of Giselle Bundchen, Lindsay Vonn, and Misty Copeland along with others to star in "inspiring" ad campaigns in the past two years reflects these efforts. Being connected to this award recipient is a major faux pas for this company at this time. Consumers should let them know that.
Back to Tappmeyer's case and one final point. We like to think that lawsuits and settlements will change attitudes and cultures. While this is possible and we have seen it happen, it is not always a guarantee. I do not see change happening at UNF. Their reliance on internal investigations (versus outside consultants), their support of Moon, and the outright denial of Tappmeyer's claims alongside the roundabout blaming of her for costing them money suggest that things will move along as they always have. Tappmeyer challenged the culture she encountered, but she could not change it. Maintaining the culture of male and white privilege and power cost UNF $125 million. I think that they are happy to pay that to continue on with business as usual.
She was dismissed from her position a year ago (March 2015). Her contract, which had been set to expire at that time, was not renewed. She had been the only women's basketball head coach in the program's history, which began in 1991. She alleged that the university fired her as retaliation for complaining about the inequitable conditions for female student athletes and made claims of sex discrimination as well. The university said she had a losing record and that every complaint about discrimination that Tappmeyer brought forward was investigated. These investigation never found that the coach's claims had any merit. Complaints included: academic exceptions (to university admissions requirements) for male basketball recruits but not female, a larger operating budget--including travel--on the men's side, and disparities in training, office, and locker room facilities. She got paid less, but claims the university held her to higher performance standards. Her lawsuit also included allegations that administrators spoke badly of her and her all-female coaching staff to student athletes, athletic department employees and donors and that they impeded her ability to coach and recruit.
So why is this case significant? One, it is a large settlement. This hints at the possibility that the university thought it would not have done better in court, though the statement from the university president stated that they settled to avoid extensive legal fees. And it is a large settlement for a case that got very little national attention and was underway for less than a year. Did the university just throw some money at this to make it go away quickly and quietly? Possibly. More on that theory later.
The second reason why this case deserves some additional analysis is because it shares characteristics with other cases we have seen. Tappmeyer did not report her allegations to the Title IX coordinator because she feared for her job. She went to the president's office instead where she was assured her position was safe. In other words, she knew that complaining within the department was dangerous for her. This is reminiscent of another Florida institution, Florida Gulf Coast University, where a group of female coaches anonymously sought help from outside the university to file a Title IX complaint about the inequitable treatment.
Sex discrimination rarely stands alone. In allegations about the culture of the department, some of which did not make it into Tappmeyer's lawsuit, she noted that Athletics Director Lee Moon engaged in racist and homophobic behavior. He did not want LGBT or black athletes recruited. Regarding the latter he was alleged to have said that audiences will not come out for an all-black team and encouraged coaches to recruit from the midwest. He wanted teams with female head coaches to have male assistants on staff, presumably to challenge the idea that the team was coached by lesbians. There are no people of color in head coaching positions on the men's side. Tappmeyer's replacement is a black man; he is the only Black person in a head coaching position.
Single axis discrimination is rare. We saw this at Penn State with the case of former women's basketball coach Rene Portland. The lawsuit by a dismissed player (which also ended in a settlement--terms undisclosed) alleged race, gender, sexual orientation discrimination. Penn State also used the internal investigation method and found no evidence of the race or gender discrimination. There is a lack of understanding about intersectional discrimination, which is part of the reason why allegations are not proven. But it exists and it contributes to the hostile climate in athletics departments.
Another similarity: discernible patterns. In addition to the racist comments and inequitable treatment, the UNF athletics department had a practice of firing female coaches and replacing them with male coaches, a la University of Iowa. Sometimes athletics directors who are in charge when the discrimination occurs are themselves fired often as a measure to demonstrate that the university is taking the claims seriously and attempting to change the offensive and discriminatory culture. Not at UNF where Moon remains in his position and supported by the administration.
This is also happening at Iowa where the university is standing solidly behind AD Gary Barta who, in addition to having his contract renewed, has just won an award for being the best athletic director!! Though the lawsuits are not yet settled at Iowa and it remains to be seen what happens to Barta, the announcement that the National Athletic Collegiate Directors Association chose him for the Under Armour Athletic Director of the Year Award was startling, to say the least. I realize that this is an aside. Perhaps it deserves its own post, but it certainly speaks to the culture that female coaches are dealing with not just at their institutions but at the national level. NACDA thinks that someone who is at the center of several lawsuits and a federal investigation about gender equity is the best athletic director in the country. I might worry about what is happening everywhere else, if I did not know that this award is the epitome of an old white boys club, let's look out for one another mentality. For a more thorough analysis of situation see this post. While Barta's recognition certainly seems to contradict some of NACDA's own criteria, Under Armour's involvement may be the thing that engenders more outrage about this situation. After all, UA is working very hard to win female athletes and fitness fans away from Nike. The signing of Giselle Bundchen, Lindsay Vonn, and Misty Copeland along with others to star in "inspiring" ad campaigns in the past two years reflects these efforts. Being connected to this award recipient is a major faux pas for this company at this time. Consumers should let them know that.
Back to Tappmeyer's case and one final point. We like to think that lawsuits and settlements will change attitudes and cultures. While this is possible and we have seen it happen, it is not always a guarantee. I do not see change happening at UNF. Their reliance on internal investigations (versus outside consultants), their support of Moon, and the outright denial of Tappmeyer's claims alongside the roundabout blaming of her for costing them money suggest that things will move along as they always have. Tappmeyer challenged the culture she encountered, but she could not change it. Maintaining the culture of male and white privilege and power cost UNF $125 million. I think that they are happy to pay that to continue on with business as usual.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Settlement in Seattle sexual assault case
The case of a high school student who was raped during a school field trip has settled out of court. The Seattle Public Schools initially tried to downplay and dismiss the student's story that she was assaulted by a student-athlete on an overnight field trip when she was 15--despite the medical evidence that indicated sexual trauma. The student and her family continued to fight the school system, even when they moved out of state; and the story began to earn nationwide attention even as the school finally began a more substantive investigation. I wrote about the details of the case, the parents' advocacy, and the
school's response at the end of the summer so I will not rehash them
here.
The school district has agreed to a $700,000 settlement (which still needs to be approved by the school board) even though their investigation has not yet concluded.
The school district has agreed to a $700,000 settlement (which still needs to be approved by the school board) even though their investigation has not yet concluded.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
UConn settles lawsuit
Late last week the University of Connecticut announced it had settled the lawsuit brought by five current and former female students. The women were accusing the university of mishandling their respective sexual assault cases. The $1.3 million settlement brings with it a no guilt finding and the withdrawal of the names of several of the women who had also filed a complaint with OCR. There are more names on that complaint, which continues to be investigated.
The settlement will be divided among the five women with each receiving a different amount. What we found interesting was that the bulk of the money, $900,000, will go to the last woman who joined the lawsuit, a former student who was a first-year student at the time of her assault. She was also a goalie on the hockey team who was dismissed from the team after reporting she was raped by a member of the men's hockey team. Her coach, who left the team at the end of this past season, said she was not "stable enough" to play on the team. The university has said it was the goalie's knee injury that lead to her release from the team. Obviously the amounts each woman will receive were carefully negotiated, but we have not heard the legal rationale for the large sum awarded to her specifically. It could be because of the loss of the opportunity to play college hockey, though there is no obvious monetary value there and the university did refund her tuition and expenses from the time she spent at UConn.
The settlement will be divided among the five women with each receiving a different amount. What we found interesting was that the bulk of the money, $900,000, will go to the last woman who joined the lawsuit, a former student who was a first-year student at the time of her assault. She was also a goalie on the hockey team who was dismissed from the team after reporting she was raped by a member of the men's hockey team. Her coach, who left the team at the end of this past season, said she was not "stable enough" to play on the team. The university has said it was the goalie's knee injury that lead to her release from the team. Obviously the amounts each woman will receive were carefully negotiated, but we have not heard the legal rationale for the large sum awarded to her specifically. It could be because of the loss of the opportunity to play college hockey, though there is no obvious monetary value there and the university did refund her tuition and expenses from the time she spent at UConn.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Settlement in Indiana bullying case
The story and case of Darnell "Dynasty" Young was one that we have not covered. Young was expelled for bringing a stun gun to school as a form of protection against students who were harassing him because of his gender expression and sexual orientation. Young, now 18, filed a lawsuit in August 2012 against the school district alleging that it did not do enough to protect him against the harassment. Young was harassed because he sometimes chose to wear accessories and clothing that were deemed more feminine (but within the school's dress code). School officials to whom Young reported the harassment told him he was bringing it on himself through his sartorial choices and that he should try to be less flamboyant. The settlement, announced in early July and subject to a judge's approval, includes $65,000 to Young as well as the erasure of Young's expulsion from all his records. Young is starting college this fall and said the money will go towards starting an anti-bullying magazine. He also plans on speaking about bullying in various Indiana schools and would like to start an anti-bullying campaign when he finishes college.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Quinnipiac settlement approved
Erin wrote in April about the settlement reached in the Quinnipiac class-action lawsuit. As she noted then, the settlement was subject to court approval. That approval came last week. We've already noted some of the terms of the settlement, one of the biggest being the guarantee that the volleyball team would not be cut and that female student-athletes would be receiving more scholarship dollars.
Here is a list (taken from the above link) of some of less discussed but very important settlement terms:
A list like this highlights the importance of equal treatment and what equal treatment looks like. Sometime we think that equal treatment is more ambiguous or abstract than equal opportunities which have three methods for assessment. The QU case provides a good example of how equal treatment--or lack thereof--can be remedied.
Here is a list (taken from the above link) of some of less discussed but very important settlement terms:
- Quinnipiac will treat two more of its women's teams as "sports of emphasis," which will lead to more scholarships, more coaches, and better facilities.
- It will increase its commitment to the new varsity sport of women's rugby by increasing scholarships, raising the level of competition, adding coaches, and substantially improving its field.
- It will increase its commitment to women's track by increasing the number of scholarships, coaches, and competitions, as well as building an indoor track & field facility that meets NCAA competition standards.
- It will authorize the maximum number of competitions for all of its teams.
- It will spend at least $5 million improving the facilities used by women's varsity teams, including locker rooms.
- It will spend about $450,000 annually improving its women's athletics program by, among other things, increasing coaching salaries, hiring more coaches and academic support staff, and providing greater access to athletic training and conditioning services.
- It will allocate up to $175,000 during each of the next 3 years for additional improvements for women's sports.
- It will hire a "Referee," mutually agreed upon by the parties and confirmed by the Court, to monitor its progress.
A list like this highlights the importance of equal treatment and what equal treatment looks like. Sometime we think that equal treatment is more ambiguous or abstract than equal opportunities which have three methods for assessment. The QU case provides a good example of how equal treatment--or lack thereof--can be remedied.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Settlement Ends Ongoing Title IX Litigation Against Quinnipiac
A settlement announced today will, pending court approval, end the litigation against Quinnipiac University that's been ongoing since 2006, when the university announced plans to terminate its women's volleyball team. Under the terms of the settlement, Quinnipiac will not to terminate women's volleyball for the three-year term of the agreement. It further agrees that if it terminates any other women's team during that time, it will replace that team with an NCAA-championship sport. This provision of the agreement reflects the influence of decisions of the federal district court (see here and here) which had refused to count towards Title IX proportionality two sports -- competitive cheer and rugby -- that had not yet attained NCAA championship status. Quinnipiac also agrees that it will not create additional men's teams without also simultaneously adding women's teams while the agreement is in effect.
Additionally, Quinnipiac agreed to numerous provisions to enhance its outdoor track team, ensuring that despite overlapping participation by members of the cross-country team, the sport is truly a separate and distinct sport rather than merely a glorified off-season for distance runners. Quinnipiac will secure access to an off-campus facility for the purpose of training and hosting an outdoor track meet, it will devote scholarship dollars to track athletes who do not specialize in distance, and will seek to expand the number of events in which Quinnipiac track and field athletes compete. Quinnipiac will also add resources to women's rugby by improving their playing facilities, opportunities for NCAA-level competition and increasing scholarship dollars devoted to that sport.
In general, the agreement ensures that Quinnipiac's women's sports teams will award at least 50% of the scholarships authorized by the NCAA, and that some women's teams -- field hockey and one other designated a "tier one" team -- will receive the full number of scholarships authorized by the NCAA. Women's volleyball will receive two additional scholarships over the next two years. And Quinnipiac will devote $5 million to facilities for its women's teams, as well as additional hundreds of thousands of dollars for other upgrades to their uniforms, equipment, supplies, and the compensation of women's coaches.
Earlier today, the Women's Sports Foundation posted a summary of the settlement terms, along with a list of the all of the positive Title IX precedent to emerge from this litigation. Summing it up rather well, the Foundation also expressed gratitude for the volleyball plaintiffs and their coach, lawyers and experts for enduring many years of litigation to eventually "obtain broad relief for all Quinnipiac University athletes" and establishing "a powerful precedent for all future female athletes."
Additionally, Quinnipiac agreed to numerous provisions to enhance its outdoor track team, ensuring that despite overlapping participation by members of the cross-country team, the sport is truly a separate and distinct sport rather than merely a glorified off-season for distance runners. Quinnipiac will secure access to an off-campus facility for the purpose of training and hosting an outdoor track meet, it will devote scholarship dollars to track athletes who do not specialize in distance, and will seek to expand the number of events in which Quinnipiac track and field athletes compete. Quinnipiac will also add resources to women's rugby by improving their playing facilities, opportunities for NCAA-level competition and increasing scholarship dollars devoted to that sport.
In general, the agreement ensures that Quinnipiac's women's sports teams will award at least 50% of the scholarships authorized by the NCAA, and that some women's teams -- field hockey and one other designated a "tier one" team -- will receive the full number of scholarships authorized by the NCAA. Women's volleyball will receive two additional scholarships over the next two years. And Quinnipiac will devote $5 million to facilities for its women's teams, as well as additional hundreds of thousands of dollars for other upgrades to their uniforms, equipment, supplies, and the compensation of women's coaches.
Earlier today, the Women's Sports Foundation posted a summary of the settlement terms, along with a list of the all of the positive Title IX precedent to emerge from this litigation. Summing it up rather well, the Foundation also expressed gratitude for the volleyball plaintiffs and their coach, lawyers and experts for enduring many years of litigation to eventually "obtain broad relief for all Quinnipiac University athletes" and establishing "a powerful precedent for all future female athletes."
Friday, February 17, 2012
$1.35 Million Settlement Ends UC Davis Litigation
Last August we blogged about the district court decision in the U.C. Davis case, in which the court found that the university did not comply with Title IX's requirement of equitable opportunity under either prong of the three-prong test during the time that the plaintiffs were students. A trial on damages was set to occur a month from now, but yesterday the parties settled rather than continue to litigate the question of how Davis would make it up to the prevailing plaintiffs. The parties agreed that Davis will pay plaintiffs' attorneys $1.35 million to cover the costs of litigation.
The plaintiffs, who wanted to wrestle for Davis, but were cut from the men's team and did not have a team of their own, are reportedly pleased with the final outcome of this case, which produced favorable judicial precedent that a university is not in compliance with prong two if it cuts women's opportunities without replacing them.
The plaintiffs, who wanted to wrestle for Davis, but were cut from the men's team and did not have a team of their own, are reportedly pleased with the final outcome of this case, which produced favorable judicial precedent that a university is not in compliance with prong two if it cuts women's opportunities without replacing them.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Florida High School Reinstates Coach After Retaliation
In June, school officials at Jensen Beach High School in Martin County, Florida, terminated girls' lacrosse coach Michele Ruth, who had advocated for her team's access to the district's best athletic facility, the stadium built for the football team, but which is otherwise used during the spring lacrosse season. This week it was reported that the school district agreed to a settlement with Ruth to keep her from filing a lawsuit. As part of the settlement, Ruth is reinstated to her coaching position, and the girls lacrosse team will have their home games in the stadium. The settlement agreement (available here) also provides that the district will reimburse Ruth's attorneys, including Linda Correia and the law firm Public Justice.
Reportedly, the district had claimed that it terminated Ruth for coaching without shoes, in violation of a school policy necessitated by the dangerous condition of the field used for lacrosse, due to the presence of "glass and nails and snakes." Two problems with this explanation probably influenced the district's decision to settle rather than face a jury: first, the coach's shoes only became an issue after she raised the Title IX implications of the athletic director's decision to exclude the lacrosse team from the stadium, and thus appear to be pretextual. Second, the unsafe conditions of the field, which the district would have to emphasize as part of its defense, not only underscore Ruth's request to play in the stadium, but raise separate questions of liability, including under Title IX.
One local columnist is calling Ruth a role model to her students for having the "courage and conviction to stand her ground."
Reportedly, the district had claimed that it terminated Ruth for coaching without shoes, in violation of a school policy necessitated by the dangerous condition of the field used for lacrosse, due to the presence of "glass and nails and snakes." Two problems with this explanation probably influenced the district's decision to settle rather than face a jury: first, the coach's shoes only became an issue after she raised the Title IX implications of the athletic director's decision to exclude the lacrosse team from the stadium, and thus appear to be pretextual. Second, the unsafe conditions of the field, which the district would have to emphasize as part of its defense, not only underscore Ruth's request to play in the stadium, but raise separate questions of liability, including under Title IX.
One local columnist is calling Ruth a role model to her students for having the "courage and conviction to stand her ground."
Friday, July 01, 2011
Settlement Follows OCR Investigation of Anti-Gay Bullying and Suicide
In January, we blogged that the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights had undertaken an unprecedented investigation by agreeing to look into charges that a school district failed to protect a middle-school student from anti-gay bullying that resulted in the student's suicide. Today OCR announced that the school district, Tehachapi Unified in California, has agreed to a settlement in response to OCR's finding that the school district was in violation of Title IX. Specifically, OCR determined that the student, Seth Walsh, was targeted for his "nonconformity with gender stereotypes, including his predominantly female friendships and stereotypically feminine mannerisms, speech and clothing." Additionally, the harassment was severe and pervasive, and that the school officials knew about it and did not adequately respond.
Under the terms of the settlement, the school district has agreed to a number of reforms, including revision of its harassment policies to address gender-based harassment, better training and education for its students, teachers, administrators, a survey assessment of the school climate regarding harassment, and responding to the climate through measures determined by consultation with an advisory committee, of administrators, students and parents.
These settlement terms are in my opinion are not so much punitive as simply "best practices" for prevention of bullying and harassment. Other school districts should not wait for a situation to escalate into a tragedy and government intervention before taking this list on themselves.
Under the terms of the settlement, the school district has agreed to a number of reforms, including revision of its harassment policies to address gender-based harassment, better training and education for its students, teachers, administrators, a survey assessment of the school climate regarding harassment, and responding to the climate through measures determined by consultation with an advisory committee, of administrators, students and parents.
These settlement terms are in my opinion are not so much punitive as simply "best practices" for prevention of bullying and harassment. Other school districts should not wait for a situation to escalate into a tragedy and government intervention before taking this list on themselves.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sure it'd be nice to keep all the sports...
In a recent hearing in California, a state senator strongly questioned the folks at UC Davis over their recent decision to cut four intercollegiate athletic teams. Senator Dean Florez, who serves on the senate's Select Committee on Gender Discrimination and Title IX Implementation (out of curiously, do other states have such a committee?), feared that the cuts were not bringing Davis any closer to proportionality. Davis, prior to these cuts, faced a lawsuit brought by several female students who played club sports. They argued that Davis was not providing enough opportunities in athletics for female students. The settlement in that case binds Davis to achieving proportionality within +/- 1.5 percentage points within ten years.*
This could be part of Senator's Florez's concern. And I am glad that state legislators are paying attention to achieving equity (though not surprised given how much money Title IX lawsuits have cost the state of California in the past few years). But if I was a state senator in California (and hadn't already resigned in utter frustration), I wouldn't be giving UC Davis a hard time over cuts that they--given the current economic reality--had to make. The athletic department had to cut over $2 million from its budget. You cannot do that by simply reducing athlete per diems or limiting travel budgets.
It's a very...nuanced situation. Because according to the math Erin and I just did based on EADA data, Davis is indeed moving closer to proportionality. Taking into account the opportunities lost from these recent cuts, the percentage of women's opportunities is at 52. The undergraduate population is 56 percent women. The 4 percent difference represents 14 opportunities--if we were shooting for exact proportionality (we didn't calculate the 1.5). This is better than the 22 opportunity disparity that existed prior to the cuts.
But what exactly was Senator Florez getting at? That no cuts should have been made? That seems like an impossible situation at this point. Given that programs, faculty, administrative support at California schools are being and have been cut it would seem kind of...well wrong...to exempt athletics. The Title IX Blog has many friends and colleagues in California who are taking furloughs left and right. And though they are sport-minded people, it's not fair to ask some to sacrifice a lot and exempt others.
So then is Senator Florez saying that Davis should have cut only men's sports? Maybe. It is still possible for the crew team to bring a lawsuit against the school because they have not complied, at this point, with any of the three prongs. Would Davis itself be in a "safe harbor" (a term usually used by anti-IXers to discuss proportionality, in a negative way) because they have ten years to reach 1.5 percent proportionality? I don't know. It would be interesting to see how a court interpreted the previous settlement in light of the current situation. I am skeptical that such a move will occur given that Davis is so close to proportionality even with the cuts--something I assume they carefully calculated themselves--and that they are indeed bound by an existing settlement to make progress. It is unfortunate--as it always is--that "progress" has come in the form of cutting teams.
*Note that I was wrong--yes, I was wrong!--in an earlier post dated April 17 about UC Davis having to maintain 5 percent proportionality as a result of a lawsuit from the 1980s. Only institutions in the California State System (i.e. Cal State Riverside, Cal State Fresno) are bound by that ruling.
This could be part of Senator's Florez's concern. And I am glad that state legislators are paying attention to achieving equity (though not surprised given how much money Title IX lawsuits have cost the state of California in the past few years). But if I was a state senator in California (and hadn't already resigned in utter frustration), I wouldn't be giving UC Davis a hard time over cuts that they--given the current economic reality--had to make. The athletic department had to cut over $2 million from its budget. You cannot do that by simply reducing athlete per diems or limiting travel budgets.
It's a very...nuanced situation. Because according to the math Erin and I just did based on EADA data, Davis is indeed moving closer to proportionality. Taking into account the opportunities lost from these recent cuts, the percentage of women's opportunities is at 52. The undergraduate population is 56 percent women. The 4 percent difference represents 14 opportunities--if we were shooting for exact proportionality (we didn't calculate the 1.5). This is better than the 22 opportunity disparity that existed prior to the cuts.
But what exactly was Senator Florez getting at? That no cuts should have been made? That seems like an impossible situation at this point. Given that programs, faculty, administrative support at California schools are being and have been cut it would seem kind of...well wrong...to exempt athletics. The Title IX Blog has many friends and colleagues in California who are taking furloughs left and right. And though they are sport-minded people, it's not fair to ask some to sacrifice a lot and exempt others.
So then is Senator Florez saying that Davis should have cut only men's sports? Maybe. It is still possible for the crew team to bring a lawsuit against the school because they have not complied, at this point, with any of the three prongs. Would Davis itself be in a "safe harbor" (a term usually used by anti-IXers to discuss proportionality, in a negative way) because they have ten years to reach 1.5 percent proportionality? I don't know. It would be interesting to see how a court interpreted the previous settlement in light of the current situation. I am skeptical that such a move will occur given that Davis is so close to proportionality even with the cuts--something I assume they carefully calculated themselves--and that they are indeed bound by an existing settlement to make progress. It is unfortunate--as it always is--that "progress" has come in the form of cutting teams.
*Note that I was wrong--yes, I was wrong!--in an earlier post dated April 17 about UC Davis having to maintain 5 percent proportionality as a result of a lawsuit from the 1980s. Only institutions in the California State System (i.e. Cal State Riverside, Cal State Fresno) are bound by that ruling.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Breaking news: Settlement in NY bullying case
In January, the federal justice department intervened in a Title IX case in Mohawk, NY involving a male teenager who has been bullied for allegedly acting too effeminate. The justice department agreed that Title IX offered protection against discrimination based on gender expression.
And according to an NPR blog, the case has settled with the Mohawk school district agreeing to pay the plaintiff, referred to only as Jacob, $50,000, as well as cover all legal fees and the cost of therapy and provide anti-discrimination training to employees (teachers and administrators were either indifferent, complicit, or part of the bullying). This settlement deal is similar to the one we reported on not too long ago.
Thus the settlement is not surprising, though at the time we reported on the potential terms it appeared negotiations had stalled somewhat.
I would like to think that the large jury award to a bullying victim in Michigan earlier this month was influential.
And according to an NPR blog, the case has settled with the Mohawk school district agreeing to pay the plaintiff, referred to only as Jacob, $50,000, as well as cover all legal fees and the cost of therapy and provide anti-discrimination training to employees (teachers and administrators were either indifferent, complicit, or part of the bullying). This settlement deal is similar to the one we reported on not too long ago.
Thus the settlement is not surprising, though at the time we reported on the potential terms it appeared negotiations had stalled somewhat.
I would like to think that the large jury award to a bullying victim in Michigan earlier this month was influential.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
UC Davis case reinstated on appeal
Erin wished in May 2008 that the three plaintiffs in the UC Davis wrestling case would appeal the decision of the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit in which the student-athletes allege Title IX violations after the school eliminated their opportunity to wrestle.
And this week her wish came true. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit* after disagreeing with the lower court's rationale that the students had to inform their institution of the discrimination first. But as Erin pointed out in her analysis of the case, this standard, established by SCOTUS's decision in Gebser, a sexual harassment case, isn't really applicable in the case of athletics. An institution, as it restructures and makes decisions about how to distribute monies and opportunities, should be well aware of doing so equitably. After all, every school has its own Title IX compliance officer and is called upon by the NCAA on a regular basis to provide evidence of gender equity.
UC Davis lawyers were not surprised by the court's decision, but they note that since the time of the lawsuit the school (in accordance with a subsequent settlement) has moved closer to proportionality and now, they say, are within 3 percentage points. According to the settlement, the school must be within 1.5 percent in 10 years. How these recent efforts to provide equitable opportunities factor into the renewed lawsuit remains to be seen.
* In this article from the AP and reprinted in the LA Times, the writer refers to Title IX as "the so-called Title IX law." What is the implication here? That it's not really a law? Is the writer referring to the fact that it was renamed to honor Patsy Mink? I don't see a lot of other laws being modified by "so-called." The so-called Civil Rights Act? Makes one wonder how he really feels about Title IX.
And this week her wish came true. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit* after disagreeing with the lower court's rationale that the students had to inform their institution of the discrimination first. But as Erin pointed out in her analysis of the case, this standard, established by SCOTUS's decision in Gebser, a sexual harassment case, isn't really applicable in the case of athletics. An institution, as it restructures and makes decisions about how to distribute monies and opportunities, should be well aware of doing so equitably. After all, every school has its own Title IX compliance officer and is called upon by the NCAA on a regular basis to provide evidence of gender equity.
UC Davis lawyers were not surprised by the court's decision, but they note that since the time of the lawsuit the school (in accordance with a subsequent settlement) has moved closer to proportionality and now, they say, are within 3 percentage points. According to the settlement, the school must be within 1.5 percent in 10 years. How these recent efforts to provide equitable opportunities factor into the renewed lawsuit remains to be seen.
* In this article from the AP and reprinted in the LA Times, the writer refers to Title IX as "the so-called Title IX law." What is the implication here? That it's not really a law? Is the writer referring to the fact that it was renamed to honor Patsy Mink? I don't see a lot of other laws being modified by "so-called." The so-called Civil Rights Act? Makes one wonder how he really feels about Title IX.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Slippery Rock settles--again
The gender equity case against Slippery Rock University that started in 2006 and was reopened last spring when some felt SRU was not meeting the settlement's requirements has settled again. The university has promised to improve the softball stadium, commit $300,000 more than in the original settlement toward improving women's athletics, and provide Title IX training for athletes, coaches, and administrators in the athletic department.
The re-settlement brings up a few interesting issues. First, SRU president Dr. Robert Smith said that it was easy to sign the settlement because everyone was working toward the same goal. But I have my doubts about the level of sincerity in this statement. He defended the poor quality of the new softball seating and the layout of said stadium which blocked certain views of the field for fans noting that he didn't think Title IX applied to the quality of the fans' experience. True. But fans in the stands affects the quality of the athletes' experience and nice facilities in which fans can see the entire field of play help get fans in the stands. There seems to be an underlying assumption that female athletes play purely for the love of the sport; that they could play in an empty stadium and still love the game. And maybe they could; but everyone likes fans. Additionally, the alleged inferior quality of the softball stadium, as compared to the baseball facilities, illustrates the argument plaintiffs used to reopen the case: that SRU remains a little weak in its commitment to gender equity. I don't know how administrators can claim they created a first-class facility when it does not equal the quality of its first-class baseball facility. Such a statement would seem to indicate that there are different standards for the men and women.
And second, Dr. Smith discussed the university's adherence to Title IX noting that they have been in compliance with prong one for two years. Women receive 56 percent of the athletic opportunities; a percentage equal to their representation in the undergraduate student body. While we applaud this change since the 2006 settlement, it provides a good opportunity to reiterate that Title IX compliance is not only about number of opportunities. An institution might meeting that one requirement of Title IX but failing miserably in providing things like quality coaching, quality competition, access to facilities, etc. While SRU does not appear to be failing miserably, we were pleased to see them sign this new settlement and recommit themselves to gender equity in their athletic department.
The re-settlement brings up a few interesting issues. First, SRU president Dr. Robert Smith said that it was easy to sign the settlement because everyone was working toward the same goal. But I have my doubts about the level of sincerity in this statement. He defended the poor quality of the new softball seating and the layout of said stadium which blocked certain views of the field for fans noting that he didn't think Title IX applied to the quality of the fans' experience. True. But fans in the stands affects the quality of the athletes' experience and nice facilities in which fans can see the entire field of play help get fans in the stands. There seems to be an underlying assumption that female athletes play purely for the love of the sport; that they could play in an empty stadium and still love the game. And maybe they could; but everyone likes fans. Additionally, the alleged inferior quality of the softball stadium, as compared to the baseball facilities, illustrates the argument plaintiffs used to reopen the case: that SRU remains a little weak in its commitment to gender equity. I don't know how administrators can claim they created a first-class facility when it does not equal the quality of its first-class baseball facility. Such a statement would seem to indicate that there are different standards for the men and women.
And second, Dr. Smith discussed the university's adherence to Title IX noting that they have been in compliance with prong one for two years. Women receive 56 percent of the athletic opportunities; a percentage equal to their representation in the undergraduate student body. While we applaud this change since the 2006 settlement, it provides a good opportunity to reiterate that Title IX compliance is not only about number of opportunities. An institution might meeting that one requirement of Title IX but failing miserably in providing things like quality coaching, quality competition, access to facilities, etc. While SRU does not appear to be failing miserably, we were pleased to see them sign this new settlement and recommit themselves to gender equity in their athletic department.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
School District Will Pay $25K to Settle Gay Harassment Suit
The Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota recently agreed to a $25,000 settlement in response to a student's claims that he was verbally harassed by two of his teachers because they believed he was gay (additional press is here and here). According to a report by the Minnesota Human Rights Commission, which investigated the claims, a teacher named Diane Cleveland "singled him out on nearly a daily basis by making jokes, comments and innuendos about her perception of his sexual orientation" -- for example, that the student's "fence swings both ways," and that he had a "thing for older men." The second teacher, Walter Filson "would repeat, add his own jokes, and allow other students in the class to joke about the boy's perceived sexual orientation." The Commission also found that district did little to curb the harassment even after the student's mother complained. Filson was not removed from the classroom even after the district confirmed his participation, while Cleveland was only reassigned for a week and completed only 1 day of her assignment to work on curriculum development and "reflect on equality and diversity in the classroom." The student ended up transferring to another district, 25 miles from his home.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Settlement Reached in UC Davis Case
In 2007, three female students who played club sports at the University of California at Davis sued the university to challenge the lack of varsity athletic opportunities for women. They argued that Davis failed to satisfy any of the three alternative prongs for measuring compliance in this regard. The university argued that it complied with the proportionality prong, as women made up 56% of the student body, and received 50% of athletic opportunities. This difference of 6 percentage points is close to the +/- 5 percentage point difference that is commonly -- though unofficially -- recognized as acceptable to constitute substantial proportionality.
This week, the parties have agreed upon a settlement to end the litigation, in which U.C. Davis agrees to close that gap to 1.5 percentage points within 10 years. The New York Times's coverage of the settlement calls this a "stricter standard" that could influence how compliance is measured across the country. To put this point into context, I want to again point out that courts have accepted that percentage differences up to 5 percentage points qualify as substantial proportionality, this has never has this been adopted as a hard and fast rule applicable to every case.
Moreover, I don't see U.C. Davis's agreement to bring its athletic opportunity percentage to within 1.5 points of the percentage of women as acceptance of a "stricter standard" so much as an acceptance of a definition of substantial proportionality that is more appropriate for Davis -- and, frankly, which might not be appropriate at other schools. The judge in the U.C. Davis case recognized when he denied the university's motion for summary judgment that a six percentage point difference such as Davis's can represent a disparity of many opportunities or few, depending on the size of the university's enrollment and the athletic department. At Davis, the disparity represented over one hundred opportunities that would have to be added to bring the percentage of athletic opportunities in line with the percentage of women on campus and give women the same access to sports as men. At smaller schools, that same percentage point difference might only represent dozens of opportunities, rather than hundreds. It makes sense that a percentage point differential that might be acceptable in one case might not be appropriate in another, and that Davis should be striving for a difference lower, rather than just over, a 5 percentage point difference. The university should be commended for agreeing to those terms, and for its other promise to contribute $110,000 to support the development of women's athletics through club sports.
This week, the parties have agreed upon a settlement to end the litigation, in which U.C. Davis agrees to close that gap to 1.5 percentage points within 10 years. The New York Times's coverage of the settlement calls this a "stricter standard" that could influence how compliance is measured across the country. To put this point into context, I want to again point out that courts have accepted that percentage differences up to 5 percentage points qualify as substantial proportionality, this has never has this been adopted as a hard and fast rule applicable to every case.
Moreover, I don't see U.C. Davis's agreement to bring its athletic opportunity percentage to within 1.5 points of the percentage of women as acceptance of a "stricter standard" so much as an acceptance of a definition of substantial proportionality that is more appropriate for Davis -- and, frankly, which might not be appropriate at other schools. The judge in the U.C. Davis case recognized when he denied the university's motion for summary judgment that a six percentage point difference such as Davis's can represent a disparity of many opportunities or few, depending on the size of the university's enrollment and the athletic department. At Davis, the disparity represented over one hundred opportunities that would have to be added to bring the percentage of athletic opportunities in line with the percentage of women on campus and give women the same access to sports as men. At smaller schools, that same percentage point difference might only represent dozens of opportunities, rather than hundreds. It makes sense that a percentage point differential that might be acceptable in one case might not be appropriate in another, and that Davis should be striving for a difference lower, rather than just over, a 5 percentage point difference. The university should be commended for agreeing to those terms, and for its other promise to contribute $110,000 to support the development of women's athletics through club sports.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Mediation in QU case
Judge Stefan Underhill, who ordered the injunction on the Quinnipiac Title IX/volleyball case recently, has sent the case to a magistrate judge for mediation talks. No word here on what next week's talks will address, but both sides made the request to the district court. My guess as to likely topics: how QU counts and reports its number of participants; cheerleading as a sport; equitable treatment of the men's and women's program(s).
Thursday, May 21, 2009
School District Settles Lesbian Harassment Case
The Vallejo City Unified School District in California will pay a former student, Rochelle Hamilton, $25,000 in a settlement to keep her from filing a lawsuit over anti-gay harassment she alleges to have experienced at the hands of faculty and staff during her sophomore year at Jesse Bethel High School. Hamilton says that teachers forced her to attend a counseling session for gay students where the counselor pressured her to disavow her lesbian sexual orientation. She also says that teachers verbally harassed her, calling her "ungodly" and telling her that she is "going to hell" and that she "can get HIV/AIDS from being gay and messing with female." She was also barred from the girls' locker room because she was not wearing stereotypically feminine attire.
The school district engaged an external investigation into Hamilton's claims; and while the investigation report is confidential, it reportedly concluded that some of the claims had merit and some did not. Apparently, however, the findings were sufficiently negative to motivate the school district to preempt the lawsuit with a settlement. In addition to the $25,000 it will pay Hamilton, the district has also agreed to revamp its harassment policies.
The school district engaged an external investigation into Hamilton's claims; and while the investigation report is confidential, it reportedly concluded that some of the claims had merit and some did not. Apparently, however, the findings were sufficiently negative to motivate the school district to preempt the lawsuit with a settlement. In addition to the $25,000 it will pay Hamilton, the district has also agreed to revamp its harassment policies.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The benefits of precedent
As Erin wrote yesterday, FGCU has settled three of the lawsuits it had on its hands. Pat Griffin's dubbing of FGCU as Fresno East certainly became even more appropriate with the news that FGCU had settled with former volleyball coach Jaye Flood, former golf coach Holly Vaughn, and former university counsel Wendy Morris.
I don't have much to add to the news or yesterday's post, but I thought it was important to point out that if all the trouble that Fresno State went through recently had not have happened; if some of those women had not come forward, we might not have seen this settlement.
I think it's just so lovely when precedent (not in the legal sense in this situation) actually works in favor of the historically oppressed and marginalized. It is unfortunate that Flood will not be reinstated as part of the settlement, though given that both Carl McAloose and Kathy Peterson who set out to get rid of Flood are still around, I am somewhat surprised that she would want to return. She's a winning and committed coach, I hope someone snaps her up. It will certainly be FGCU's loss.
There is, though, a seemingly loose end in the FGCU situation: Gina Ramacci. Ramacci, an assistant softball coach, filed a complaint with the school regarding the non-renewal of her contract. But last we heard, investigation into the complaint had gotten held up.
Overall it's a pretty good day for female coaches. Wishing I had some FGCU volleyball or golf gear to proudly sport on a day like today.
I don't have much to add to the news or yesterday's post, but I thought it was important to point out that if all the trouble that Fresno State went through recently had not have happened; if some of those women had not come forward, we might not have seen this settlement.
I think it's just so lovely when precedent (not in the legal sense in this situation) actually works in favor of the historically oppressed and marginalized. It is unfortunate that Flood will not be reinstated as part of the settlement, though given that both Carl McAloose and Kathy Peterson who set out to get rid of Flood are still around, I am somewhat surprised that she would want to return. She's a winning and committed coach, I hope someone snaps her up. It will certainly be FGCU's loss.
There is, though, a seemingly loose end in the FGCU situation: Gina Ramacci. Ramacci, an assistant softball coach, filed a complaint with the school regarding the non-renewal of her contract. But last we heard, investigation into the complaint had gotten held up.
Overall it's a pretty good day for female coaches. Wishing I had some FGCU volleyball or golf gear to proudly sport on a day like today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)