31 Cal. App. 5th 640
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Five African‑American women's basketball players at Cal State San Marcos (CSUSM) sued Coach Sheri Jennum and the CSU Board alleging race‑based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation affecting playing time, practice opportunities, and treatment; one plaintiff (Cooper) had earlier seasons and the other four are 2013‑14 freshmen.
- Key incidents: Jennum labeled several African‑American players "the group," treated them more harshly (yelling, splitting them up, pulling from practice, limiting playing time), and interrogated the team in an "Am I racist?" meeting after complaints. Several players left or lost eligibility during the season.
- Two plaintiffs (Mackey, Williams) filed formal discrimination complaints; CSUSM investigator McLean found harassment but not intentional discrimination sufficient to terminate Jennum; an arbitrator later reinstated Jennum.
- The Board moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it as to all claims. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court reversed in part: it affirmed summary adjudication for all §1981 and §1983 claims (Board is an arm of the state and not a "person" under those statutes) and for one plaintiff's (Hicks) Title VI retaliation claim, but held there were triable issues on the freshmen plaintiffs' Title VI and Unruh Act discrimination claims and most Title VI retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSUSM (Board) is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1981 and §1983 | Plaintiffs sought to proceed on §1981/§1983 claims against the Board | Board argued it is an arm of the state and not a "person" under those statutes (Will) | Held: Board not a "person" under §§1981/1983; summary adjudication proper for those claims |
| Whether freshmen plaintiffs raised prima facie Title VI / Unruh discrimination (adverse action & discriminatory motive) | Freshmen: reduced playing time, harsher discipline, exclusion, and a hostile environment together materially adverse and raise inference of racial motive ("the group", investigator's findings, multiple African‑American players affected) | Board: adverse action limited to suspension/release; coaching discretion explains playing/time decisions; nondiscriminatory reasons exist | Held: Trial court construed adverse action too narrowly; viewing record for plaintiffs, triable issues exist on adverse action and discriminatory motive — summary adjudication improper |
| Whether evidence excluded at summary judgment was properly excluded (selected evidentiary rulings) | Plaintiffs challenged several objections to declarations and sought to use investigator report corroboration | Board relied on hearsay/foundation/timeliness; trial court sustained many objections | Held: Court abused discretion in excluding some of Mackey's declarations but properly excluded other hearsay or untimely filings; limited evidentiary errors did not justify summary judgment |
| Whether Title VI retaliation claims are triable (protected activity, adverse action, causation) | Mackey/Williams/Smith: they complained or spoke at meeting and afterwards suffered worse treatment or removal; causation exists | Board: some plaintiffs did not complain (Hicks), or lacked causation; nondiscriminatory reasons explain outcomes | Held: Triable issues as to retaliation for Mackey, Williams, Smith; Hicks did not engage in protected activity or suffer retaliation — summary adjudication proper as to Hicks' Title VI retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states or their "arms" are not "persons" under §1983) (establishes that entities that are arms of the state are not subject to suit under §1983)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for intentional discrimination claims)
- Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (defines "adverse action" as materially affecting terms/conditions; totality of circumstances analysis)
- Elliott v. Delaware State University, 879 F. Supp. 2d 438 (D. Del. 2012) (college athlete Title VI hostile‑environment/retaliation analysis; adverse treatment may support constructive discharge)
- Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District, 83 Cal. App. 4th 1098 (arm‑of‑state and §1983 liability discussion)