Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)

Citation
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Parent Document
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-02-08

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text

1,756 chars
[9] Universities’ decisions with respect to athletics are
even more “easily attributable to the funding recipient and . . .
always — by definition — intentional,” id. at 183, than the
retaliation in Jackson. Institutions, not individual actors,
   13
      Simpson concerned two female University of Colorado (CU) students
sexually assaulted by football players and high school football recruits.
The Tenth Circuit held that Gebser’s notice standard did not apply. The
record supported the finding that the head football coach was aware of
“the serious risk of sexual . . . assault during college-football recruiting
efforts [and] that such assaults had indeed occurred during CU recruiting
visits,” Simpson, 500 F.3d at 1184, and that, although the Boulder District
Attorney’s office had recommended a policy to curb such assaults after a
previous incident involving recruits, the policy was not followed and CU
continued to sponsor an “unsupervised player-host program to show high-
school recruits ‘a good time.’ ” Id. The court held this sequence of events
satisfied the “official policy” element of Gebser and that a woman
assaulted thereafter need provide no separate notice and opportunity to
cure before filing suit.
      MANSOURIAN v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA 2225
decide how to allocate resources between male and female
athletic teams. Decisions to create or eliminate teams or to
add or decrease roster slots for male or female athletes are
official decisions, not practices by individual students or staff.
Athletic programs that fail effectively to accommodate stu-
dents of both sexes thus represent “official policy of the recip-
ient entity” and so are not covered by Gebser’s notice
requirement. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290.