Facts

These are facts according to plaintiff: Linda Vivas, 47 was the head volleyball coach at California State University Fresno (FSU) from 1991 through 2004. Her successes included the best won-lost record in the history of women's volleyball at the university, the best student academic performance of any varsity athletic team at Fresno, six invitations to post-season tournaments, and three selections as the Western Athletic Conference Coach of the Year. Fresno Athletic Director Scott Johnson decided not to renew her contract following 2004. Vivas claimed she was a victim of Johnson's vendetta against women who advocated for gender equity and compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Vivas sued the Board of Trustees of California State University for retaliation under Title IX and the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA), and discrimination based upon gender, perceived sexual orientation, and marital status.

These are facts according to defendant: in January 2005, plaintiff Vivas' contract as a head coach of the women's volleyball team at the California State University, Fresno, expired on it own terms. In December 2004, Vivas was notified by the university that it would not renew her contract, but would instead open the position up for a national search, for which Vivas was able to and did apply for.

The university chose not to renew her contract for various performance issues, including her failure to (1) schedule home games with Top 25 teams, (2) qualify the team for post-season play in the NCAA championships, and (3) increase attendance. These performance expectations were stated in her employment contract. In her 14 years as head coach, Vivas also failed to garner a conference championship for the team in the Western Athletic Conference.

These performance expectations and goals are standard for head coaches in Division I athletic programs throughout the country. The program under Vivas had stagnated after the 2002 season (which had been her best season), and in some areas had declined significantly (poor attendance, declining win-loss record, failure to win a conference championship, etc.) during the 2003 and 2004 seasons, before the contract was non-renewed.

Vivas claimed she was fired (even though defendant claimed her contract had expired on its own terms) and sued the university for alleged discrimination based on her gender, marital status, and perceived sexual orientation, and for alleged retaliation for her advocacy of gender equity under Title IX, and her complaints of discrimination pertaining to her employment under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act.

Vivas also asserted that Athletic Director Scott Johnson reassigned her supervisor (and close friend) in 2002 and terminated the women's basketball coach in 2005 for similar reasons. According to defendant, her supervisor was not fired, and the women's basketball coach was terminated for cause because of improper and immoral conduct relating to drug use, fiscal improprieties, dishonesty, moral turpitude, and other matters.

Vivas claimed that Johnson's reasons for non-renewing her contract were bogus. She contended that her volleyball program was the second most successful team at Fresno State. She contended that her attendance was low because Johnson only allowed her to play home games in a small gymnasium, and not the university's main arena.

The university disputed these allegations and contended that Vivas failed to perform from 2003 to 2005 because she failed to schedule Top 25 teams (which would have allowed her to play in the main arena), failed to get into the NCAA playoffs, failed to ever win a conference championship (after 14 years as head coach), and failed/refused to increase attendance—contrary to the performance of most every other high profile head coach at Fresno State.

The university also contended that the volleyball team was not the second most successful team at Fresno State. According to defendant, Vivas was told that all scheduled competitions with Top 25 teams would be played at the arena, the Save Mart Center, a privately owned venue, not controlled or operated by the university. She failed to schedule Top 25 opponents. All other matches were scheduled and played in the campus gymnasium (the North Gym) because average attendance was less than half the capacity of that gym. (The Save Mart Center accommodates 16,000 spectators and the North Gym accommodates 1200 to 1400). The defendants contended that the team's average attendance in 2004, yet in her last season was 760.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
FSU has a history of failing to comply with laws and regulations requiring gender equity in its athletic programs. In January 1992, the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it would conduct a compliance review of the intercollegiate athletics programs at FSU to determine the university’s compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

In April 1994 OCR issued a letter of findings, concluding that FSU was out of compliance in 11 of 13 areas. OCR and FSU agreed on a Corrective Action Plan. Many of the male coaches and administrators in the FSU Athletic Department actively opposed the plan. They harshly retaliated against the women who advocated for it, including Vivas. They yelled at and intimidated the women coaches in department meetings, instigated unflattering press coverage of the gender equity advocates, and participated in an Ugly Women Athletes luncheon. University officials failed to stop the abuse.

Specials in Evidence

Vivas sought $555,000 in past lost wages over the course of three years. She also claimed unspecified damages for loss of future earnings capacity and emotional distress.

Damages

Vivas claimed total compensation of $185,000 annually for salary, benefits, perks, and a personal service agreement with a Fresno State athletic corporation. The trustee's argued she earned only $95,388 a year.

Result

The jury found in favor of plaintiff on her claims of Title IX and FEHA retaliation and discrimination on the basis of gender and perceived sexual orientation. The total verdict was $5,852,069 ($550,000 past economic loss; $1,802,069 future economic loss; $2,625,000 past non-economic loss (emotional distress); $875,000 future non-economic loss (emotional distress)).

Other Information

Post trial motions and appeal will be filed by the university.

Deliberation

two days

Length

20 days