While the case, Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, continued long after the graduation of Arezou, Christine and Lauren, the women racked up a series of victories for Title IX culminating in the settlement of the case in February 2012.

In August 2011, the three women scored a major win after a three-week bench trial on the issue of whether UC Davis violated Title IX when they were students. A federal district court in Sacramento found in their favor, ruling that UCD dropped more than 60 intercollegiate sports opportunities for women without replacing them – soundly defeating the University’s claim that it had been expanding opportunities for women to satisfy Title IX.

Other legal milestones included a landmark win at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which rejected the imposition of procedural hurdles to Title IX suits challenging athletic participation inequities and creation of a fund that has awarded over $70,000 in grants to developing female athletes on the UC Davis campus. More information about the legal victories here: http://www.equalrights.org/media/2012/MansourianPressReleaseFinal.pdf

Shortly the lawsuit was filed, women’s wrestling made its Olympic debut in 2004 and today thousands of girls now participate in wrestling across the country.

Christine: “All we ever wanted was to represent UC Davis in sports. We litigated this case for nearly 10 difficult years and missed that opportunity. It should not have to take that long to achieve justice, but we are happy that the lives of many young women attending UC Davis after we did have benefited and will benefit from our fight for Title IX.”

Lauren: “The case paved the way for so many girls who wanted to wrestle or participate in other non-traditional sports. For that, we are proud.”

Arezou: “I have fought for women’s rights in college athletics for the past 10 years and the change it has brought for the future of women athletes has been worth the battle.”

The WISE Fund was borne out of Brust v. Regents of the University of California, a class action suit brought by women club athletes against UC Davis that alleged that women were getting too few intercollegiate athletic opportunities. “We are very excited that this key term of our Title IX suit continues to benefit women athletes at Davis,” stated Noreen Farrell, Managing Attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. ERA served as co-counsel for the athletes, along with the Sturdevant Law Firm and Equity Legal.

The agreed-upon Brust settlement also sets out a 10-year plan for UC Davis to reach specific proportions of male and female athletes by the 2019-20 school year. The university will either add women’s intercollegiate teams or will take other measures to ensure equal accommodation of student interest in varsity sports. UC Davis has also agreed to contribute $110,000 to a fund for the development of club sports, which the plaintiffs will distribute consistent with the purposes of the lawsuit.

The suit, Brust v. Regents of the University of California, was filed as a companion class action case to a still pending Title IX suit filed by women wrestlers in 2003, who challenge discrimination they faced at Davis arising from their removal from the varsity wrestling program. The wrestler case, Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, proceeds to trial starting Monday at a federal court in Sacramento. ERA, the Sturdevant Law Firm, Equity Legal, and the law firm of Duckworth, Peters, Lebowitz Olivier LLP also represent plaintiffs in the Mansourian case.

The WISE Fund, administered by the Women’s Foundation of California, awarded several grants for team-related expenses to club sport teams for the 2010-2011 school year to support development of women athletes. The recipients ranged from women’s rugby to women’s field hockey club teams.

The fund was lauded by UC Davis club lacrosse team members Miriam Kolni and Alexandra Pene. “The WISE Fund provided us with the funds to travel to Georgia and to play against higher ranking teams that we would otherwise have been unable to play,” said Alexandra Pene, a junior and lacrosse club team member. “Playing higher ranking teams, increased our ranking, which allowed us to become a leading contender at the top in the nation.”

“Most of the time you see men lacrosse teams playing on ESPN, so that is what the public sees,” said Pene. “But I think more and more girls are playing sports and it’s just as important to have those opportunities available to them as it would be for boys.”

Having the support also freed up students’ time to focus on academics “instead of stressing out over funding for your team’s next competition,” as both Pene and Kolni said.

Kelsey Brust, lead plaintiff in the Brust case that led to the establishment of the WISE Fund, stated, “While the WISE Funds will one day be spent, I am proud that our Title IX suit made a difference at Davis and that other women will continue to benefit from it for years to come.”

As noted by ERA’s Noreen Farrell, “Although we have made great progress, our work continues to ensure an equal education for the young men and women who will be our leaders tomorrow.”

The Ninth Circuit allowed the case, brought by former women students who were intercollegiate wrestlers at the University of California, Davis, to proceed against the University and certain of its officials for discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.  Plaintiffs Arezou Mansourian, Christine Wing-Si Ng, and Lauren Mancuso are represented by Noreen Farrell of Equal Rights Advocates, Monique Olivier of the Sturdevant Law Firm and Kristen Galles of Equity Legal.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a decision by the district court that found that Plaintiffs had not provided the University adequate notice of their claims before filing suit for monetary damages, as is typically required in Title IX cases involving sexual harassment by a rogue employee. The Ninth Circuit also reinstated Plaintiffs’ constitutional equal protection claim.

In a comprehensive opinion, the Ninth Circuit rejected the imposition of a pre-litigation notice requirement in Title IX cases alleging unequal athletic opportunities, finding that no notice is required because UC Davis’ own decisions are at issue. The Court stated: “Institutions, not individual actors, decide how to allocate resources between male and female athletic teams. Decisions to create or eliminate teams or to add or decrease roster slots for male or female athletes are official decisions, not practices by individual students or staff. Athletic programs that effectively fail to accommodate students of both sexes thus represent ‘official policy’ of the recipient entity …’”

The Court further found that forcing plaintiffs to provide pre-litigation notice would be inconsistent with a school’s “affirmative obligations to provide nondiscriminatory athletic participation opportunities and continually to assess and certify compliance with Title IX.” See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000010277

The Ninth Circuit also found that UC Davis had failed to prove its compliance with Title IX, noting the wealth of evidence suggesting that UC Davis had not provided adequate opportunities for women athletes as the federal civil rights law requires. Plaintiffs are now free to pursue their claims back in the district court.

“We are thrilled,” stated Plaintiff Christine Ng. “We wanted our day in court, not only for us, but as an opportunity to stand up for all girls and women trying to participate in contact sports where stigmas against women remain strong.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel Monique Olivier applauded the results: “T he Ninth Circuit decisively removed a barrier the district court had set when it imposed a notice requirement on women athletes seeking relief under Title IX.”

Noreen Farrell, Plaintiffs’ counsel from Equal Rights Advocates, hailed the Ninth Circuit decision: “This is a decision of national importance for students across the country. Some 37 years after Title IX’s passage, a school cannot just sit back and wait for complaints. The decision confirms that schools must proactively ensure gender equity in its athletic and other educational programs. Only when this is obligation is met will we stand a chance at finally meeting the important goals of Title IX.”

The University entered into a settlement last year in a re lated case brought by current students at UC Davis which provides an agreed set of standards for female participation rates in intercollegiate sports and also provides additional financial support for club sports on campus.