Sweetwater contends that these findings were clearly erroneous because (1) “At most, the named plaintiffs who attended CPHS at the time of the complaints can legitimately state they engaged in protected activity”; (2) the district court did not articulate the standard it used to determine which actions were “adverse” and did not, as Sweetwater says was required, evaluate whether Plaintiffs “were denied access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school as a direct result of retaliation”; and (3) there was no causal link between protected activity and adverse action because Coach Martinez was fired to make way for a certified, on-site teacher, not because of any Title IX complaints.
“In the Title IX context, speaking out against sex discrimination … is protected activity.” Id. at 725 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “Title IX empowers a woman student to complain, without fear of retaliation, that the educational establishment treats women unequally.” Id. That is precisely what happened here. The father of two of the named plaintiffs complained to the Castle Park athletic director in May 2006 about Title IX violations; Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Sweetwater a demand letter in July 2006 regarding Title IX violations at Castle Park; and Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in April 2007. These are indisputably protected activities under Title IX, and the district court’s finding to that effect was not clearly erroneous.
It is not a viable argument for Sweetwater to urge that a class may not “sue a school district for retaliation in a Title IX athletics case.” As we have previously held: “The existence of a private right of action to enforce Title IX is well-established.” Mansourian v. Regents of Univ. of
