Viva Vivas! $5.8 million Title IX win against CSU-Fresno

When CSU-Fresno administrators fired Linda Vivas from her position as head volleyball coach in 2004, they undoubtedly hoped the paper trail they created would mask the retaliatory motives behind Vivas’ termination. University documents included claims that Vivas had not fulfilled all the terms and conditions of her contract, yet—as Vivas’ trial brief disclosed—she was often discriminatorily denied access to the very resources she needed to fulfill those terms and conditions. For instance, Vivas was denied an appropriate venue for top tier matches that was made readily available to similarly situated male coaches. The informal grapevine that invariably accompanies the “official” personnel documents also tapped into longstanding homophobia in college athletics by insinuating that Vivas was a lesbian. The lethal combination of official and unofficial justifications for Vivas’ firing, coupled with other retaliatory actions and a corrupt grievance process, were designed to force Vivas—like so many aggrieved victims before her—to abandon all hope of fair and respectful treatment at Fresno State and to slink quietly away with as much of her career still intact as possible. But the “playbook” that is usually so effective in helping universities rid themselves of “troublesome” faculty and staff (usually women and people of color) didn’t work for CSU, this time.

Although Fresno State produced the obligatory paper trail detailing how Vivas supposedly “fell short of ‘objective’ criteria” and steadfastly denied that Vivas’ opposition to the disparate treatment of female athletes had any bearing on their decision to fire her, the jury saw through the university’s protestations of innocence. Over the years, Vivas, former female colleagues, and families of female student athletes had been forced to create a paper trail of their own regarding gender discrimination and retaliation for complaining about discrimination. “Issues facing Fresno State over the Years,” a news article by Aaron Murrietta, chronicled Diane Milutinovich’s 2002 lawsuit and Title IX complaint, as well as the 2003 lawsuit filed by 12 members of the 2002-2003 Fresno State women’s swimming team. Family members have also drawn attention to CSU-Fresno’s attempts to “create the appearance of a well-organized program” that is supposedly in compliance with Title IX requirements, but actually poses safety risks for athletes. For instance, the parents of Shana Eriksson filed a lawsuit against Fresno State on August 6, 2004, alleging that the university’s negligent administration of an improperly supervised, under-funded, and poorly operated equestrian program resulted in their daughter’s death.

Specific to the Vivas case, Vivas was the “winningest” volleyball coach in Fresno State’s history. She advocated for equal resources and equitable marketing for women’s teams. Throughout her career at the university, she protested numerous instances of gender discrimination against herself, her female colleagues, and the female athletes she championed. One example cited in Vivas’ trial brief was her complaint against male staff members who celebrated “Ugly Women Athlete’s Day” by making a banner for the so-called “celebration” that featured cut-outs of male faces attached to female bodies. In May of 2003, Vivas filed a Title IX complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and sued Fresno State under Title IX for discrimination and retaliation for advocating gender equity for her volleyball team. Despite maintaining a overall record of 263 wins and 167 losses, as well taking the Fresno State women’s volleyball team to its highest percentage win ever, Vivas was fired in 2004. On July 9, 2007 a California jury awarded Vivas $5,852, 069—more than $ 2 million dollars above the amount she sought in her lawsuit.

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) recently issued a statement noting that the jury verdict in the Vivas case signaled that California juries are registering grave concerns about how frequently retaliation is used to discourage plaintiffs from standing up for fairness and equity. According to AAUW, the jury “made a statement that such acts” of retaliation “will no longer be tolerated.” If this is true, it is a good sign for all who seek equitable treatment in the CSU system.

Given the size of the Fresno State award, discrimination and retaliation within the CSU system has also captured the attention of California legislators. Unlike CSU campus and central administrators who expend enormous energy and millions of taxpayer dollars denying, dismissing and discrediting legitimate complaints of gender and racial discrimination and retaliation within the CSU system, California legislators want answers, accountability and reform. The California State Senate’s Select Committee on Gender Discrimination and Title IX Implementation, Chaired by Senator Dean Florez, has launched an investigation of the state’s publicly funded schools to review Title IX compliance. Hearings are being conducted at the State Capitol and at college and community settings across the state. Senator Florez has pledged to determine whether or not the Title IX violations that have been exposed through the recent series of jury verdicts involving several campuses are “endemic” to the California State University system.