Veronica Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School, 768 F.3d 843

Background

Plaintiffs (Castle Park female students and parents) brought a class Title IX action against Sweetwater Union High School District alleging (1) unequal treatment/benefits in athletics, (2) unequal participation opportunities, and (3) retaliation after complaints and a formal Title IX demand letter.
District court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on the unequal participation claim, excluded two defense experts and 38 untimely disclosed witnesses, denied Sweetwater’s motion to strike the retaliation claim, and after a bench trial awarded declaratory and injunctive relief on unequal treatment/benefits and retaliation.
Numerical data showed girls comprised ~45–50% of enrollment but only ~33–41% of athletes (1998–2008); disparities in the relevant years were 6.7%, 10.3%, and 6.7%—gaps equal to dozens of potential female athletes.
Castle Park had intermittent program changes (e.g., field hockey offered, cut, reinstated, cut again); school cited staffing/coach availability as reasons for cuts, plaintiffs argued cuts reflected discrimination and unmet interest.
Coach Chris Martinez (softball) was fired shortly after Title IX complaints; plaintiffs alleged this and other actions (loss of assistants, canceled banquet, loss of tournament participation, bans on parent volunteers/snack stand) constituted retaliatory adverse actions that harmed the softball program.
Ninth Circuit affirmed: applied the three‑prong Title IX “effective accommodation” test to the high school, upheld expert and discovery exclusions, found plaintiffs had standing for retaliation claim, and upheld permanent injunctive relief on participation, unequal benefits, and retaliation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Castle Park provided participation opportunities substantially proportionate to female enrollment under Title IX prong 1	Female participation lagged and numbers (actual athletes)—not number of teams—show lack of substantial proportionality	Overall proportionality exists; more girls’ teams than boys; recent trend and program expansion show compliance	Held for Plaintiffs: actual athlete numbers not substantially proportionate; 6.7% gap (~47 girls) could sustain a viable team, so prong 1 failed
Whether program expansion satisfied Title IX prong 2 (history and continuing practice of expansion)	No steady, responsive expansion; participation showed ups and downs, not continuing expansion responsive to interest	Castle Park increased number of girls’ teams over decade; therefore prong 2 satisfied	Held for Plaintiffs: Court found no history/continuing practice of expansion; number of teams alone insufficient; prong 2 failed
Whether interests/abilities were fully and effectively accommodated under prong 3 (unmet interest, ability, competition)	Eliminated teams (field hockey) and failure to hire coaches showed unmet interest and ability; sufficient competition existed	Defendant argued lack of demonstrated interest (no official surveys), field hockey not CIF-approved or lacked sustained interest	Held for Plaintiffs: school’s cutting of field hockey despite previous viable rosters and inability to show lack of interest meant prong 3 failed; overall Title IX noncompliance affirmed
Whether plaintiffs had standing and could state Title IX retaliation claim based on coach’s firing and related actions	Plaintiffs suffered concrete harms to their softball opportunities after complaints; they fall within Title IX’s zone of interests and can sue for retaliation	Sweetwater argued only coach (third party) has standing for retaliation arising from adverse employment action against him; students cannot recover for coach’s firing	Held for Plaintiffs: Students had Article III standing; retaliation claim viable; district court’s finding that plaintiffs engaged in protected activity, suffered materially adverse actions, and causal link (temporal proximity, pretext) was not clearly erroneous
Whether district court properly excluded defense experts under Rule 702	Plaintiffs: experts’ opinions were speculative, based on cursory visits, lack reliable methods	Sweetwater: experts qualified and relevant	Held for Plaintiffs: exclusion affirmed—district court did not abuse gatekeeping/discretion; testimony found unreliable and speculative
Whether exclusion of 38 untimely disclosed witnesses under Rules 26/37 was proper	Plaintiffs: late disclosure prejudicial; discovery rules require timely disclosure	Sweetwater: witnesses were referenced in discovery; late disclosure harmless or justified for some who were later-employed	Held for Plaintiffs: exclusion affirmed—failure to disclose was neither substantially justified nor harmless; district court did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Neal v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univs., 198 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 1999) (adopted three‑prong Title IX "effective accommodation" test)
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX private right of action includes retaliation claims)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial courts must act as gatekeepers on expert testimony reliability)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (adverse action standard: materially adverse conduct that might dissuade a reasonable person from making/supporting a discrimination charge)
Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (anti‑retaliation standing and zone‑of‑interests principles)
Mansourian v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 602 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2010) (applied Title IX standards; deference to DOE guidance)
Emeldi v. Univ. of Or., 698 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2012) (applied Title VII retaliation framework to Title IX claims)
Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)