WLP LogoMasthead Pictures

 

Equity in Athletics Litigation:
Choike v. Slippery Rock University et al; No. 2:06-cv-622.

Slippery Rock Women Level the Playing Field

On February 16, 2010, U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose entered an order giving final approval to amendments to the two-year-old settlement of the Title IX class action lawsuit brought against Slippery Rock University (SRU). The amendments include a host of improvements for women’s varsity athletics at Slippery Rock, a state university in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.  These improvements include alterations to the softball, soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse fields, weight rooms and weight equipment, equal access to weight rooms and batting cage, clarification of the Senior Woman Administrator as a a spokesperson for the needs and interests of female student-athletes, and Title IX training for all student-athletes, athletic department staff, and coaches.

Stipulation And Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval Of Amendments To Settlement Agreements (12/21/09).

Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law And Consent Order (2/16/10).

History of Litigation

May 9, 2006 - Represented by the Women's Law Project, co-counseling with Abbe Fletman and Liz Hoerst of Flaster/Greenberg, P.C., twelve student-athletes filed a Title IX lawsuit against Slippery Rock University (SRU) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania after SRU announced it was going to cut three women's varsity sports.

Complaint
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8

Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13

June 14, 2006 - A hearing on the preliminary injunction was held.
July 21, 2006 - U.S. Chief District Judge Donetta Ambrose granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, ruled that SRU intentionally discriminated against its female student-athletes by eliminating the women’s swimming and water polo teams after shortchanging its women athletes of their fair share of athletic opportunities for more than 25 years, and ordered SRU to reinstate the women’s swimming and water polo teams immediately.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Court

July 27, 2007 — Fairness Hearing for Approval of Class Action Settlement

August 8, 2007 — U.S. Chief District Judge Donetta Ambrose entered an order giving final approval to the settlement of plaintiffs’ participation and treatment claims negotiated in two stages before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan.  With respect to participation, SRU agreed to:

  • Retain women’s swimming and water polo as varsity teams for one full academic year after SRU has achieved compliance with the proportionality requirement of Title IX within two percentage points; and
  • Allocate an additional amount of money to women’s varsity athletics for the academic year following any year during which the participation of SRU female varsity athletes is not within two percentage points of the proportion of full-time female undergraduates.

With respect to treatment, SRU agreed to:

  • Substantial improvements to the softball field to bring it closer in quality to the baseball team’s Critchfield Park, described as “one of the premier Division II ballparks in the nation;”
  • New and improved women’s locker rooms;
  • Equitable availability of medical and training personnel and facilities for women athletes;
  • Equitable provision of and compensation to coaches of women’s teams;
  • Adoption of policies setting forth gender-equitable treatment regarding uniforms, travel, equipment, publicity, trainers, and access to automobiles for recruitment by coaches.

Central to the achievement of equity in treatment is SRU’s agreement to adopt a comprehensive prospective athletic budget and the creation of a $300,000 fund to be spent over 3 years on women’s athletics to overcome the effects of historical conditions that have limited women’s participation in athletics.  SRU has also agreed to provide documentation to plaintiffs’ counsel on an annual basis for three years to allow monitoring of compliance with the terms of the agreement and progress in achieving equity in both participation and treatment.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Consent Order
Treatment Claims Settlement
Participation Claims Settlement