Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School Dist.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 07cv714-L(WMc). |
| Parties | Veronica OLLIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Elizabeth Kristen, Legal Aid Soc-Emp Law Ctr., San Francisco, CA, Erin Cranman Witkow, Manatt Phelps and Phillips, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Daniel R. Shinoff, Gil Abed, Patricia Michelle Coady, Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION [doc. # 66]
Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on their second cause of action. [doc. # 66]. The motion has been thoroughly briefed and the Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs are female students who attend or will attend Castle Park High School ("CPHS") in the Sweetwater Union School District ("District") and participate or would participate in interscholastic athletic activities. On April 19, 2007, named plaintiffs brought this case as a class action.1
Defendants are alleged to have unlawfully discriminated against female student athletes with respect to "practice and competitive facilities; locker rooms; training facilities; equipment and supplies; travel and transportation, coaches and coaching facilities; scheduling of games and practice times; publicity; and funding." (Complaint, ¶ 40.) Additionally, plaintiffs allege that defendants have "failed to provide female students with equal athletic participation opportunities, despite their demonstrated athletic interest and and abilities to participate in athletics." Id., ¶ 71. Because of this alleged failure, plaintiffs assert that girls' participation in sports is severely limited and interested girls are discouraged from going out for sports. Id, ¶ 74.
Defendants2 filed their answer on June 29, 2007 [doc. # 14] which included 31 affirmative defenses. In their present motion, plaintiffs seek summary adjudication of their second cause of action and 21 of the 31 affirmative defenses raised by defendants: 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19-31. In response to plaintiffs' motion, defendants state that "the District does not have evidence to support the affirmative defenses challenged in this motion, and therefore agrees to dismiss these particular affirmative defenses." (Opp. at 17.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 empowers the court to enter summary judgment on factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is material when, under the substantive governing law, it affects the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir.1997).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. If the moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial, it may carry its initial burden by "produc[ing] evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's case, or, after suitable discovery, the moving party may show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim or defense to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial." Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir.2000). When the moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue—whether on a claim for relief or an affirmative defense—the party "must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in its favor." Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir.1986); see S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2003).
If the moving party fails to discharge its initial burden of production, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party's evidence, even if the nonmoving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1102-03. When the moving party carries its initial burden of production, the nonmoving party cannot "rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Rather, the nonmovant must "go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (internal quotations omitted); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103.
A "genuine issue" of material fact arises if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987). When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court cannot engage in credibility determinations or weighing of the evidence; these are functions for the jury. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir.2002). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106, 123 S.Ct. 872, 154 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003). The court is not required "to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact," Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir.1996), but rather "may limit its review to the documents submitted for purposes of summary judgment and those parts of the record specifically referenced therein." Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir.2001).
Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Plaintiffs' second cause of action alleges a violation of Title IX based upon unequal participation opportunities for females in athletic programs at CPHS against defendant District.3
The Office of Civil Rights ("OCR") published a Policy Interpretation of Title IX in 1979, that laid out the three factors used to assess whether an institution complies with Title IX. See OCR Policy Interpretation, 44 Fed.Reg. 71,413 (1979); see also Neal v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Universities, 198 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir.1999).
In the present case, the parties agree that compliance in the area of equivalent participation opportunities must be determined by the three-part test:
1. Whether intercollegiate4 level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments;
2. Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or
3. Where the members of one sex are under-represented among intercollegiate athletes and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.
Policy Interpretation, 44 Fed.Reg. 71,418.
Plaintiffs argue that the undisputed facts demonstrate that under the first prong of the test, the District does not provide girls with athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to their enrollment at CPHS during the class period.5 Girls enrollment and their participation in athletic activities are provided by plaintiffs as Tables 1 and 2, and Table 3 shows the difference between girls' enrollment percentage and percentage of girls participating in sports and the number of additional girls who would have played sports if participation were proportional to enrollment and no fewer boys participated in sports. Plaintiffs prepared the Tables from information obtained from defendants in response to various discovery requests and from the California Department of Education website. (See Kristen Decl. passim.). Defendants do not challenge the accuracy of these numbers.6 Tables 1 through 3 follow:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Department of Education
...female athletic participation and female undergraduate enrollment was not substantially proportionate); Oilier v. Sweetwater Union High School District, 604 F.Supp.2d 1264 (S.D.Cal.2009) (holding that the plaintiffs demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the defendants failed to provide fem......
-
Mansourian v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of California at Davis
...athletic participation opportunities through the elimination of two women's “B” teams. See Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 604 F.Supp.2d 1264, 1272–1273 (S.D.Cal.2009) (holding that “[a]lthough a slight decrease in athletic participation in a given year will not be fatal to show......
-
Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.
...court gave summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their unequal participation claim in March 2009. See Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 604 F.Supp.2d 1264 (S.D.Cal.2009). The court found that “substantial proportionality requires a close relationship between athletic participation and......
-
Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ.
...there would be a presumption that the institution is not in compliance with Part Three.”); see also Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 604 F.Supp.2d 1264, 1274 (S.D.Cal.2009) (“[W]hen a viable team is eliminated, unmet interest is strongly suggested.”). Thus, under the circumstance......