Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletics: Where Does Pennsylvania Stand?

Equity in Athletics: Choike v. Slippery Rock University

Comprehensive Settlement of Title IX Lawsuit Against Slippery Rock University Approved by Court

On August 8, 2007, U.S. Chief District Judge Donetta Ambrose approved the class action settlement of a Title IX lawsuit brought against Slippery Rock University in Western Pennsylvania.

The settlement is aimed at achieving gender equity in an athletic program that has short-changed female athletes for decades.

The lawsuit was brought by 12 Slippery Rock student athletes after the school announced plans to cut three women's varsity sports (swimming, water polo, and field hockey) at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Slippery Rock reversed its decision to cut field hockey after lawyers for the students notified the school of their intent to challenge the cuts under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded educational programs. On July 21, 2006, U.S. Chief District Judge Donetta Ambrose ruled that Slippery Rock University 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. The federal judge ordered Slippery Rock to reinstate the women’s swimming and water polo teams immediately.

With this settlement, plaintiffs secure for themselves and future athletes Slippery Rock’s commitment to achieve fairness in both participation and treatment of women athletes. The settlement requires Slippery Rock University (SRU) to comply with Title IX’s equal participation and equal treatment requirements. The major terms of the settlement include:

The retention of 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
The allocation of 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.
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;
The Adoption of policies setting forth gender-equitable treatment regarding uniforms, travel, equipment, publicity, trainers, and access to automobiles for recruitment by coaches.
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.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs. In the athletic arena, Title IX mandates the provision of athletic opportunities in proportion to the gender balance in the student body and equitable treatment in the availability, quality, and kinds of benefits and opportunities afforded female student athletes, including equipment and supplies, locker rooms and other facilities, coaching, medical and training services, recruitment, travel, publicity and other facets of the athletic program, and scholarships.

The student-athletes are represented by the Women’s Law Project, a non-profit women’s legal advocacy organization with offices in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia; and Flaster/Greenberg, P.C., a multi-disciplinary law firm of 65 lawyers in seven offices throughout Philadelphia, Wilmington and Southern New Jersey.

Complaint

Motion for Preliminary Injunction