Videckis v. Pepperdine University
150 F. Supp. 3d 1151
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White are former Pepperdine women’s basketball players who allege staff repeatedly investigated and harassed them because staff perceived them as lesbians, including intrusive questioning, differential academic/study-hall treatment, medical-record demands, and interference with clearances and NCAA transfer appeal.
- Plaintiffs allege coach statements that “lesbianism” would not be tolerated and that staff tried to turn teammates against them; Plaintiffs further allege they were not cleared to play, lost scholarships, and suffered emotional harm (one attempted suicide).
- Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint asserting, inter alia, three Title IX causes of action: (3) deliberate indifference, (4) intentional discrimination, and (5) retaliation; Pepperdine moved to dismiss those Title IX claims and to strike prejudgment interest.
- The central factual allegations supporting Title IX claims: repeated questioning about sexual orientation and private sexual behavior; adverse administrative and athletic actions (denial of clearances, stalled appeal, removal from team); and complaints to school officials followed by alleged worsening treatment.
- Procedurally: Court previously granted dismissal in part of an earlier complaint but invited amendment; here the Court considers Rule 12(b)(6) challenges to the TAC and denies Pepperdine’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX covers discrimination based on sexual orientation | Sexual-orientation discrimination is actionable under Title IX; alternatively, the conduct fits gender-stereotype discrimination | Title IX does not reach sexual-orientation discrimination | Court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is not a separate category — it falls within sex/gender-stereotype discrimination and can state a Title IX claim |
| Whether allegations suffice as gender-stereotype discrimination under Title IX | Plaintiffs allege staff acted on stereotypes about lesbianism and punished perceived nonconformity | Defendant contends allegations do not plead gender-stereotype theory adequately | Court: Allegations — intrusive questioning, statements that lesbianism would not be tolerated, differential treatment — plausibly state gender-stereotype discrimination |
| Whether Plaintiffs pleaded a sex-discrimination claim (but-for test) | Plaintiffs: Were treated differently because they were women in a same-sex relationship; treatment would differ if sexes were different | Defendant disputes that the conduct is sex-based discrimination | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged sex-based discrimination (would not have occurred but for plaintiffs’ sex/sex of their partners) |
| Whether Title IX retaliation claim is sufficiently pleaded | Plaintiffs: Complained internally and suffered adverse actions thereafter | Defendant: Plaintiffs did not engage in protected activity because they hid relationship | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged protected complaints, adverse actions, and causal link; retaliation claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard — plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard and dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX framework and school liability)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (gender-stereotype theory of sex discrimination)
- Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001) (gender-stereotype harassment recognized under Title VII)
- Emeldi v. Univ. of Oregon, 698 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2012) (Title IX/T itle VII interpretive overlap and retaliation prima facie elements)
- Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussion regarding sexual orientation under Title VII)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX private cause of action for retaliation)
- Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978) (sex-based disparate treatment test)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (same-sex harassment is actionable under sex-discrimination law)