Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California

Good Law
594 F.3d 1095·602 F. Supp. 3d 957·2010 WL 430944·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2602
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 8, 201008-16330California7,589 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

ORDER

The opinion filed on February 8, 2010, is hereby amended. The amended opinion is attached hereto. With this amendment, Judges Schroeder and Berzon have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Shadur so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. No future petitions for rehearing will be entertained.

OPINION

The statute known as Titile IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 , is widely recognized as the source of a vast expansion of athletic opportunities for women in the nation’s schools and universities, so much so that a company that sells women’s athletic apparel now mimics its name. See www.titlenine.com. Despite that renown, the district court in this case held that a university that receives federal funds cannot be held liable in damages for failing effectively to accommodate the athletic interests of both men and women unless the aggrieved women first provide the appropriate university…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.