Page:Veronica Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School District (September 19, 2014) US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.djvu/5

This page has been validated.
OLLIER V. SWEETWATER UNION I-IIGH SCH. DIST.
5

OPINION


GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Defendants—Appellants Sweetwater Union High School District and eight of its administrators and board members (collectively “Sweetwater”) appeal the district court’s grant of declaratory and injunctive relief to Plaintiffs—Appellees Veronica Ollier, Naudia Rangel, Maritza Rangel, Amanda Hernandez, and Arianna Hernandez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on Title IX claims alleging (1) unequal treatment and benefits in athletic programs;[1] (2) unequal participation opportunities in athletic programs; and (3) retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.


I

On April 19, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Sweetwater alleging unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), see 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[2] They alleged that Sweetwater “intentionally discriminated” against female students at Castle Park High School (“Castle Park”) by “unlawfully fail[ing] to provide female student athletes equal treatment

  1. Neither of Sweetwater’s briefs on appeal includes argument on Plaintiffs’ unequal treatment and benefits claim. Thus, Sweetwater has waived its appeal on that claim. See Hall v. City of L.A. 697 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2012).
  2. Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § I983 sex-based discrimination claim dropped out of the case in July 2010, when the district court severed it from the Title IX claims upon agreement of the parties.