Fresno State, women's lacrosse players near final Title IX settlement

(CN) — Fresno State will institute a gender equity review as part of a proposed settlement agreement over accusations the California state university treated women’s lacrosse players worse than other teams.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara McAuliffe issued the recommendation Tuesday for settlement approval, a move expected to end the four-year-old class action once a final fairness hearing occurs Nov. 17.

The 2021 class action stemmed from accusations that the college and its board of trustees denied the women’s lacrosse team equal opportunities for athletic financial aid and treatment, a violation of Title IX. They also eliminated the team at the conclusion of the 2020-21 academic year, along with men’s tennis and wrestling teams.

The lacrosse team says it faced worse treatment once its elimination became certain, pointing to its exclusion from athletic facilities and its locker room. Members couldn’t enter the locker room to collect their personal items, it argued.

Settlement talks began after a March certification of the class.

“After over four years of hard-fought litigation, the parties agreed to settle the case according to the terms of the settlement agreement,” McAuliffe said.

The proposed settlement calls for the appointment of a neutral third-party hired by Fresno State that will perform a Title IX gender equity review of the college’s athletic department. It will write a gender equity compliance plan for varsity athletic opportunities, athletic treatment, and benefits for men and women students.

The plan’s implementation will start Sept. 1, 2026, and reach completion at the end of the 2027-28 academic year.

Yearly reports about the plan’s implementation will be posted on the athletic department’s website by July 31, ending in 2029.

Additionally, Fresno State will add a women’s varsity team under certain conditions: the women’s participation gap is 40 or greater over two consecutive academic years, or 30 or greater over three consecutive academic years. The addition of a new team must occur if no other means are available to lower the participation gap.

The class action requested no monetary relief. Other than attorneys’ fees and costs, none are listed in the proposed agreement.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking $900,000 in litigation costs and expenses, to be paid by Fresno State. The college doesn’t oppose the payment and won’t ask for a reduction. Likewise, plaintiffs’ attorneys don’t intend to ask for more.

The judge in her recommendation noted that attorneys for the women’s team indicated the amount was less than their calculations for hours worked. However, they agreed to the number to reach a proposed agreement.

Having listed the details of the proposed settlement, McAuliffe discussed whether it’s fair and reasonable. Factors to weigh include the strength of the case, the chances of continued litigation and the monetary amount included.

The judge noted that both sides swapped information and discussed the case’s aspects during settlement negotiations, including risks and delays stemming from extended litigation.

“Both parties felt strongly about their case, and arriving at a settlement that was acceptable to both parties was difficult,” she said. “All parties considered the risks in continued litigation.”

McAuliffe also said in her recommendation that the proposed settlement didn’t have preferential treatment and contained no obvious deficiencies.

The case has trudged through the court system, at one point reaching the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Initially asking a judge to stay the team’s elimination, the plaintiffs received a mixed bag. The judge allowed Fresno State to eliminate the lacrosse team, though it did have to treat it equally for the remainder of that academic year.

Some claims failed as the suit progressed, though its effective accommodation and equal treatment claims remained intact. The issue of class certification reached the Ninth Circuit in 2024, with the appeals court vacating a lower court’s denial of certification.

That set the stage for a lower court’s March ruling denying the college’s motion to dismiss and granting a motion to certify class.

“We are delighted that the magistrate has recommended preliminary approval and found it to be a good settlement,” said attorney Arthur Bryant, representing the plaintiffs.

“I and my co-counsel are proud to represent them,” he added.

Attorneys for the defendants couldn’t be reached for comment by publication time.