Pederson v.

Louisiana State University

Legal Brief #2 ED 502
Citation:
- Pederson v Louisiana State University . (2017). Retrieved from Findlaw for legal
professionals : http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1153689.html

Facts:
- In March of 1994 three females undergraduate students at the University of Louisiana,
Beth Pederson, Lisa Ollar, and Samantha Clark filed sued against LSU alleging that LSU
violated and continued to violate Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 as
well as the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
- The plaintiffs claimed that LSU had denied the female students equal opportunity to
participate in intercollegiate athletics, equal opportunity to compete for and to receive
athletic scholarships, and equal access to the benefits and services that LSU provides to
its varsity intercollegiate athletes, by discriminating against women in the provision of
athletic scholarships and in the compensation paid coaches.

Issues:
- LSU did not field female teams in Womens Soccer or Softball therefore denying female
athletes the same opportunity to participate in collegiate athletics.
- LSU claimed it had not violated Title IX since a proportionality test could not be used
when considering violations of the statute. LSU also disputed Pederson's creation of a
putative class. Finally, LSU argued that even if it had violated Title IX, any such violation
was unintentional.

Ruling:
- The district court held that a proportionality test could be used to determine whether LSU
violated Title IX. The court held that since the student population at LSU was 49%
female, while athletic participation was only 29% female, LSU was in violation of Title
IX, a decision that the Fifth Circuit upheld.
- The Fifth Circuit Court also unanimously ruled that LSUs violation of Title IX was
intentional in nature an overturn of the district courts ruling.

Rationale:
- The court held that LSU may have ignorantly violated Title IX, it "need not have
intended to violate Title IX, but need only have intended to treat women differently." Id.
at 411. The court relied on statements made by university employees, particularly LSU's
athletic director, to determine that LSU intentionally treated women differently.

Conclusion:
- As a coach and potentially a future administrator of athletics this case in a Title IX issue
will have impact over future decisions of athletic offerings. The gender equality put into
place through Title IX will continue to give equal access to athletic opportunities.
- Athletics will continue to be examined as student athletes demand equal access.
Governing bodies will have to ensure that all schools participating in athletic competition
will need to comply with the rules of Title IX.