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)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-02-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065442/mansourian-v-regents-of-the-uni... ↗

Full Text

1,198 chars

[19] The district court was quite correct. Section 1983 “is
presumptively available to remedy a state’s ongoing violation
of federal law.” AlohaCare v. Haw. Dep’t. of Human Servs.,
572 F.3d 740, 745 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). A
       MANSOURIAN v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY             OF   CALIFORNIA 2235
plaintiff has adequately pled an ongoing claim if she can
“show a systematic policy or practice that operated, in part,
within the limitations period — a systematic violation.”
Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t. of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 822 (9th
Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted); see also Gutowsky v. County
of Placer, 108 F.3d 256, 259 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding plain-
tiff’s § 1983 claims timely because she alleged “widespread
policy and practices of discrimination [that] continued every
day of her employment, including days that fall within the
limitation period”).19 A university’s ongoing and intentional
failure to provide equal athletic opportunities for women is a
systemic violation. As the plaintiffs were students and there-
fore subject to the policy that allegedly discriminated on the
basis of sex at the time they filed their complaint, their § 1983
claim is not time-barred.

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text