The damages phase of the trial on the Title IX claim was scheduled to start on March 5, 2012. The parties chose instead to resolve all remaining issues, including any possible appeals, with payment by the University of $1,350,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the lengthy case.

“This settlement is the final chapter in a precedent setting Title IX case brought by three brave young women who were denied the opportunity to play college sports, but through their determination and fighting spirit paved the way for the women who are playing sports at the University of California and other institutions today,” stated Plaintiffs’ counsel Noreen Farrell of Equal Rights Advocates. Plaintiffs were also represented by the Sturdevant Law Firm, Equity Legal, and Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, with support from the American Association of University Women. “We are saddened that the University chose to spend millions to defend and settle this case rather than give our clients a chance to wrestle. But this case ensures that UC Davis will provide equal athletic opportunities in intercollegiate sports as Title IX requires,” added Jim Sturdevant.

Arezou Mansourian, Christine Ng and Lauren Mancuso were dedicated wrestlers and still students when they filed suit in 2003 demanding that UC Davis provide female students an equal opportunity to play intercollegiate varsity sports. All three were pioneers in a male-dominated sport. Mansourian placed at North Coast sectionals in high school. Ng was a high school team captain. Mancuso was a nationally ranked high school champion. Each was recruited to come to wrestle at Davis but then cut from the program after the University refused to continue the contract of a supportive coach.

As noted by Mansourian: “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.” While the case continued long after the graduation of these Plaintiffs, they racked up a series of victories for Title IX, including:

Landmark Ninth Circuit Win Removes Hurdles To Title IX Suits

In May 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal weighed in on the Mansourian case on an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in the case on the Title IX claim on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had not provided UC Davis of sufficient notice of the precise nature of their claims before filing a suit for damages. In strongly worded decision that set important guidance for Title IX claims across the country, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that students need not provide a school “notice” of its own institutional decision to provide female students fewer opportunities to play sports. Instead, as the Court found: “[Title IX] requires continuous progress toward the mandate of gender equality that Title IX has imposed on funding recipients for the past thirty years.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel Kristen Galles from Equity Legal, a Title IX expert who has litigated many Title IX cases, emphasized the important precedent also set by the Ninth Circuit on the merits of a defense raised by the University in this case and by many universities across the country: “The Ninth Circuit opinion in this case emphasized that a school must have both a history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for women. They can’t just wait and let decades of unmet interest build up until someone files a legal complaint. They have affirmative, independent obligations to expand opportunities. Schools have had 40 years to expand their women’s programs to catch up with the already existing men’s programs. Unfortunately, many schools just haven’t done it. Hopefully, the decision in this case will wake schools up to their obligations.”

Trial Victory For Plaintiffs Finding Title IX Violation By University

In August 2010, Plaintiffs scored another win after a three-week bench trial on the issue of whether UC Davis violated Title IX when Plaintiffs were students. A federal district court in Sacramento found in Plaintiffs’ favor on the claim, ruling that the University dropped more than 60 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.

Taking stock of the settlement announcement, Plaintiff Christine Ng stated: “All we ever wanted was to represent UC Davis in sports. We litigated this case for nearly ten 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.”

Women’s wrestling also scored a win from the case. Plaintiff Lauren Mancuso stated: “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.” Shortly after Plaintiffs filed suit, women’s wrestling made its Olympic debut in 2004 and today thousands of girls now participate in wrestling across the country.

Injunctive Relief Resulting in Much Improved Gender Parity in UC Davis Athletics and WISE Fund Support of UC Davis Female Athletes

The Mansourian suit led to the filing of a related suit on behalf of a class of current female students at UC Davis, Brust v. Regents, which resulted in a settlement in 2008 that required UC Davis to improve gender parity in its athletic participation ratios. Monetary proceeds from the settlement were used to create a fund to help developing female athletes at UC Davis. In the past two years, the Women In Sports Equity (WISE) has awarded over $70,000 in grants to female athletes at Davis.

WISE Fund recipient and Co-President of UC Davis’s Lacrosse Club Jessica Dresser hailed the fund: “The WISE fund allows for women who may not have the financial means to play collegiate sports to do so. By eliminating barriers to skilled competition such as lack of funding to travel or even being able to afford to participate, more women have the opportunity to learn and further the growth of the sport.”

For more information about the case, see www.equalrights.org.

About ERA

Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), founded in 1974, is a national civil rights organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. Through its campaign approach—incorporating public education, legislative advocacy, and litigation—ERA assists women and girls throughout a life-long continuum: ensuring equality in their educational experience, combating sex discrimination in the workforce, and advocating for workplaces hospitable to working families. To learn more about ERA’s work, visit www.equalrights.org.

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.