I agree with you about Duke's McCallie crying sour grapes. "It%u2019s clear how our heralded freshma...more
posted 03/16/11 at 3:26pm
on Women's NCAA Tournament 2011: Which 25 teams have the most momentum coming in?
| March Madness is in full effect! Enter the Women Talk Sports Bracket Challenge HERE. | Then tell your friends: | Tweet |
|
posted by Title IX Blog
Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 5:06pm EST
An interdisciplinary resource for news, legal developments, commentary, and scholarship about Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded schools.
Two former coaches at Diablo Valley College in California, part of the Contra Costa Community College district, are reportedly suing in federal court to contest their allegation that they were retaliated against for challenging the college's decision to terminate two women's teams last year. As we have earlier reported on this blog, the coaches complained both internally with the district and externally with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights that the cuts would violate Title IX due to the severe disparity in athletic opportunities for men and women. These complaints resulted in the reinstatement of all of the terminated teams, which include the men's and women's cross country, track, and tennis teams, but the coaches who had raised the Title IX issue were not rehired to their jobs.
As I told the reporter for this story, it is often challenging for retaliation plaintiffs to prove that the reason for the adverse employment consequences (here, not being rehired) was retaliation for complaining about discrimination, rather than for some other neutral purpose such as the financial or budgetary reasons DVC maintains. Therefore, it is significant that the coaches in this case allege that they were directly told by the athletic director that "there would be negative consequences for filing a complaint." If that evidence proves true, these coaches would prevail on what is usually the highest hurdle for plaintiffs in retaliation cases.
(N.B. In case the plaintiffs or their lawyers are reading this, please know that the aforementioned reporter had asked me about general background on the retaliation standard, not about the details of your case, which were not available to me at the time I spoke to him. Therefore, while I did tell him about the aspects of the retaliation doctrine that are generally most difficult to prove, it is entirely inaccurate to suggest, as he does, that I told him I thought you might have a "hard time" winning your case. I hope he honors my request for a correction.)
View Original Post at title-ix.blogspot.com | View EBuz's Full Profile
MOST POPULAR POSTS
posted by Women Undefined
07/31/10 at 10:26pm
posted by Swish Appeal
03/15/11 at 1:43pm
posted by MsAkiba
10/11/09 at 2:40pm
posted by They're Playing Basketball
01/23/11 at 11:37am
posted by HoopFeed.com
02/11/11 at 12:10am
posted by McCarter.Nathan
06/23/10 at 5:34pm
posted by Swish Appeal
03/14/11 at 9:12am
posted by Swish Appeal
03/16/11 at 12:51pm
posted by They're Playing Basketball
03/16/11 at 12:18am
posted by Swish Appeal
03/16/11 at 1:10am
LATEST WTS POSTS
posted by C and R's Stanford Women's Basketball Blog
Today at 2:11am
posted by They're Playing Basketball
Today at 2:02am
posted by Inspiring Sports Women
Today at 1:52am
posted by Women in Sport International
Today at 1:14am
posted by They're Playing Basketball
Today at 1:12am
posted by Left Coast Hoops
Today at 1:10am
posted by MarQFPR
Today at 12:53am
posted by Draft Day Suit
Wed at 9:13pm
posted by Swish Appeal
Wed at 9:13pm
posted by Bike Diva
Wed at 8:19pm
No one has commented on this yet. Be the first!