Mansourian v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of California at Davis

• Decision Date: 03 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2:03–cv–2591 FCD EFB.,2:03–cv–2591 FCD EFB.
• Citation: 277 Ed. Law Rep. 735,816 F.Supp.2d 869
• Parties: Arezou MANSOURIAN; Lauren Mancuso; Nancy Nien–Li Chiang; Christine Wing–Si Ng; and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS; Lawrence Vanderhoef; Greg Warzecka; Pam Gillfisher; Robert Franks; and Lawrence Swanson, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

277 Ed. Law Rep. 735
816 F.Supp.2d 869

Arezou MANSOURIAN; Lauren Mancuso; Nancy Nien–Li Chiang; Christine Wing–Si Ng; and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS; Lawrence Vanderhoef; Greg Warzecka; Pam Gillfisher; Robert Franks; and Lawrence Swanson, Defendants.

No. 2:03–cv–2591 FCD EFB.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Aug. 3, 2011.

[816 F.Supp.2d 874]

James C. Sturdevant, Sturdevant Law Firm A Professional Corporation, Jora Thu Trang, Noreen Ann Farrell, Equal Rights Advocates, Monique Olivier, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kristen Marie Galles, Equity Legal, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiffs.

David Pontus Eugene Burkett, Nancy Joan Sheehan, George A. Acero, Michael William Pott, Porter Scott, PC, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., District Judge.

The opportunity for students to participate in intercollegiate athletics is a vital component of educational development. Such participation helps young adults develop leadership, confidence, determination, grace, discipline, and a myriad of other qualities that will serve them long after they leave college. All students, regardless of gender, should have equal access to participation in athletics. Indeed,

[816 F.Supp.2d 875]

both the Constitution and federal law require it.

This case arises out of plaintiffs Arezou Mansourian (“Mansourian”), Lauren Mancuso (“Mancuso”), and Christine Wing–Si Ng's (“Ng”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) claims that defendants Regents of the University of California (the “University” or “UC Davis”), Larry ¹ Vanderhoef (“Vanderhoef”), Greg Warzecka (“Warzecka”), Pam Gill–Fisher (“Gill–Fisher”), and Robert Franks (“Franks”) (collectively, “defendants”) deprived them of the equal opportunity to participate in varsity ² athletics while they were students at UC Davis, in violation of both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that they were wrongly deprived of their opportunity to participate in intercollegiate wrestling. Through this suit, plaintiffs seek money damages and declaratory relief. Defendants assert that, at all relevant times, the UC Davis athletic program and each individual defendant complied with constitutional and federal mandates regarding gender equity.

The court held a fifteen day bench trial from May 23, 2011 through June 15, 2011. Considering the evidence presented therein, the evidence submitted through stipulation, and the parties' written submissions thereafter, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT ³ I. Plaintiffs

1. Plaintiff Christine Wing–Si Ng (“Ng”) entered UC Davis in Fall 1998 and graduated in September 2002. (Am. Pretrial Conference Order (“Pretrial Order”) [Docket # 549], filed May 4, 2011, ¶ 6.)

2. Plaintiff Arezou Mansourian (“Mansourian”) entered UC Davis in Fall 2000 and graduated in June 2004. ( Id. ¶ 7.)

3. Plaintiff Lauren Mancuso (“Mancuso”) entered UC Davis in Fall 2001 and received her degree in September 2006. ( Id. ¶ 8.) Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, her relevant time period at UC Davis is from Fall 2001 to December 2005. (Trial Transcript (“TT”) 554:1–4; 2325:6–17.)

II. History of Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletic Participation Opportunities at UC Davis

4. UC Davis is a campus of the University of California system that receives federal funds for its educational programs and is subject to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”). (Pretrial Order, Stipulations, ¶ 1.)

5. The record is undisputed that since 1970, female students at UC Davis demonstrated great interest in athletic opportunities. ( See JX 14, 15; PX 7, 391.) Indeed, hundreds of female students participated each year during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s in club team sports such as archery, badminton, bowling, cycling, crew, fencing, equestrian, lacrosse, rifle, ski, water polo, and synchronized swimming. (TT 1155:22–1156:5; 1410:12–20; see PX 17, 391.)

6. However, at all relevant times, females were the underrepresented sex in UC Davis' intercollegiate athletics program. (Pretrial Order, Stipulations, ¶ 1.)

[816 F.Supp.2d 876]

7. Before the passage of Title IX, UC Davis had a philosophy, set forth in “The Davis View” to offer intercollegiate athletics to the greatest number of students possible. (TT 1836:14–18.)

8. As early as May 27, 1970, UC Davis applied this philosophy to conclude that it was desirable to expand both its women's and men's intercollegiate athletic programs. (JX 14, at FP.0749.)

9. Based on the best recollection of those involved in the campus athletic program, when Congress enacted Title IX in 1972, UC Davis supported 7 intercollegiate sport teams for women: basketball, field hockey, swimming, softball, tennis, volleyball, and track & field. (Pretrial Order ¶ 14.) ⁴

10. In January 1972, the UC Davis Women's Intercollegiate Athletic Subcommittee, made up of students belonging to the Women's Athletic Association (including defendant Gill–Fisher), prepared a report for the Intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Board. The report was designed to show the current philosophies, practices and needs of the women's intercollegiate athletic program at UC Davis, as well as trends at the local, regional, and national level. (JX 15; TT 1616:10–1621:10)

11. The report recommended that the campus add women's gymnastics and badminton as intercollegiate sports. (JX 15; TT 1616:10–1621:10.)

12. In 1974, UC Davis added women's gymnastics as an intercollegiate sport. (Pretrial Order ¶ 15; TT 1821:10.) There is no evidence that women's badminton was ever added as an intercollegiate sport.

13. In or about 1976, Gill–Fisher chaired a committee to evaluate UC Davis' compliance with Title IX. (TT 1613:24–1615:22.)

14. In July 1978, Gill–Fisher co-authored a UC Davis Title IX compliance review, which recommended, inter alia, that women's cross-country be considered an intercollegiate sport for 1978. (JX 16; TT 1622:5–1623:12)

15. In 1978, UC Davis upgraded women's cross-country to intercollegiate status. (TT 1622:20–1623:6.)

16. Subsequently, UC Davis discontinued women's field hockey at the end of the 1982–1983 school year. (Pretrial Order ¶ 17.)

17. The discontinuation of women's field hockey was done for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons; interest in the sport as well as viable competitive opportunities at the intercollegiate level were decreasing.⁵

18. In the 1980s, interest in field hockey was on a downward slope as the number of teams nationwide decreased and the interest in field hockey in California high

[816 F.Supp.2d 877]

schools decreased. (TT 1821:11–15; 1838:16–1839:4.)

19. In the 1980s, only seven colleges in California played field hockey at all. Over that decade, NOR–PAC, the conference in which UC Davis played field hockey, decreased in size from seven schools to three schools. (TT 2461:2–5; 2462:21–2464:9.)

20. Further, finding fields suitable for field hockey was a pervasive problem because field hockey requires an even, manicured surface that makes it difficult for field hockey teams to share fields with teams from other sports. (TT 2461:14–2462:19.)

21. At the same time, interest and competition was increasing rapidly in women's intercollegiate soccer. (TT 1821:11–15, 1838:4–1839:3; 1625:3–1627:7.)

22. UC Davis evaluated the high schools, junior colleges, and universities in its area and saw many schools were offering soccer, with the result that UC Davis had a solid recruiting base and expectation of competition in women's soccer. (TT 1626:21–1627:7.)

23. As such, women's field hockey was replaced by women's intercollegiate soccer in the fall of 1983. (Pretrial Order ¶ 17.)

24. Thereafter, sometime in the late 1980s, UC Davis appointed Dennis Shimek as its Title IX Compliance Officer.⁶ (TT 2331:5–9; 1858:2–16.)

25. In 1989, UC Davis commenced a comprehensive Title IX review, which formed the foundation for UC Davis' subsequent progress in program expansion for women student-athletes. (JX 17; TT 1630:9–1633:6; 1826:3–1827:2.)

26. The review made findings that UC Davis was not in compliance with Title IX under any of part of the three prong test.⁷ (JX 17, at 10–17.) Specifically, when compared to the enrollment rates of male and female students, the data collected in the review confirmed that UC Davis was offering men hundreds more athletic participation opportunities than women relative to enrollment.⁸ (JX 17, at 3763.)

27. In accordance with the philosophy espoused in “The Davis View,” UC Davis preferred trying to add women's teams rather than eliminate men's teams in attempting to comply with Title IX. (TT 2342:24–2343:8; 646:2–12.)

28. As such, the review resulted in a recommendation that UC Davis establish steps to increase women's participation opportunities. (JX 17, at 10–17.)

29. Moreover, beginning in 1990, and continuing through 1992, then Assistant Athletic Director Pam Gill–Fisher recommended that UC Davis eliminate the junior varsity football team to save funding and decrease the disparity between men's and women's intercollegiate athletic participation opportunities. (TT 1637:10–1638:19.)

30. The January 10, 1991 Report on Intercollegiate Athletics, prepared by athletic

[816 F.Supp.2d 878]

department administrators, reported that women were receiving 300–400 fewer participation opportunities than men for each year from 1986 to 1991, and recorded a drop of 120 female participation opportunities from 1989 to 1991 alone. (PX 13, at DEF 1266.)

31. On June 27, 1991, Gill–Fisher submitted a Title IX review to then Athletic Director Jim Sochor, noting the discrepancy in male and female participation rates and that no steps had been taken to increase athletic participation opportunities for women. (JX 18.)

32. On December 20, 1991, Gill–Fisher submitted an update regarding Title...