Stanley

Stanley v. University of Southern California

Good Law
178 F.3d 1069·99 Daily Journal DAR 5278·1999 WL 346615·44 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 311·76 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 46,014
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 2, 1999Nos. 95-55466, 95-56250, 96-55004California4,834 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hug, J.

Appellant Marianne Stanley appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants University of Southern California and Michael Garrett on Stanley’s claims of discrimination and breach of employment contract. Stanley also appeals the denial of her motion to recuse Judge Davies, and her motion to re-tax costs. Appellants move for an award of sanctions against Stanley for filing the latter two appeals.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Marianne Stanley was hired as head coach of the women’s basketball team for the University of Southern California (“USC”) in 1989. Her initial contract, signed in July of that year, was for a four-year term, expiring June 30, 1993. The contract provided that she would make a base salary of $60,000 per year. This base salary was increased to $62,000 per year in 1992. The women’s basketball program at USC enjoyed much success during Stanley’s tenure.

Defendant Michael Garrett is the Athletic Director at USC. On April 20, 1993, two months prior to the expiration of Stanley’s contract, Stanley and Garrett had an initial meeting to negotiate a new contract. The parties disagree over what took place at this meeting.…

Dissenting Opinion

Pregerson, J.

dissenting:

By focusing on the differences between Stanley’s and Raveling’s qualifications, the majority skips over the many ways in which gender discrimination insidiously affected the University’s treatment of the women’s basketball program and Stanley as its Head Coach. The University’s halfhearted promotion of the women’s basketball program, its intensive marketing of the men’s basketball program, and the formidable obstacles Stanley faced as a woman athlete in a male-dominated profession contributed to this disparate treatment.

It is hard for me to square these realities with the majority’s ruling denying Stanley relief without a trial.

Therefore, I dissent.

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.