{"id":1127,"date":"2024-01-23T19:01:42","date_gmt":"2024-01-23T23:01:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1127"},"modified":"2025-07-18T09:13:40","modified_gmt":"2025-07-18T13:13:40","slug":"ninth-circuit-vacates-class-certification-denial-in-fresno-state-title-ix-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/01\/23\/ninth-circuit-vacates-class-certification-denial-in-fresno-state-title-ix-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Vacates Class Certification Denial In Fresno State Title IX Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/em><\/strong>On January 17, 2024, in Anders, et al. v. California State University Fresno, et al., No. 23-15265, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1063 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024), the Ninth Circuit vacated<\/a> the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California\u2019s decision to deny Plaintiffs\u2019 renewed motion for class certification.\u00a0 Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court erred by finding the named plaintiffs would not be adequate class representatives due a \u201cspeculative\u201d conflict of interest that could develop at the remedy stage of the litigation.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit remanded the action to the District Court for further proceedings.\u00a0 The ruling is required reading on the procedural aspects of class certification in discrimination cases in general, and with respect to how actual or perceived conflicts on interest in particular implicate the Rule 23 (a)(4) analysis.<\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts, Megan Walaitis, Tara Weir, and Courtney Walburger were all former members of the California State University, Fresno (\u201cFresno State\u201d) women\u2019s lacrosse team.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *2.\u00a0 Plaintiffs brought class claims alleging effective accommodation and equal treatment under Title IX.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Plaintiffs sought an injunction that would prohibit Fresno State \u201cfrom eliminating Fresno State’s women’s lacrosse team (or any other women’s varsity intercollegiate athletic opportunities at Fresno State) unless and until Fresno State is and will be in compliance with Title IX.”\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *5, fn. 4.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs \u201csought certification of classes consisting of current and future female students at Fresno State who have participated in or are able and ready to participate in women\u2019s varsity intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *3.\u00a0 <\/em>The District Court denied Plaintiffs\u2019 class certification motion in its entirety on the basis that the Plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives under Rule 23(a)(4), as their affiliation and contentions favored the women\u2019s lacrosse team over other women\u2019s varsity sports.\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit\u2019s Ruling<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court\u2019s decision to deny class certification of the effective accommodation and equal treatment claims.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *6.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

First, the Ninth Circuit noted that to defeat adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4), any conflict of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the putative class members must be \u201cactual\u201d and not \u201cspeculative,\u201d which only exists if the remedy sought precludes \u201cstructural assurance of fair and adequate representation for the diverse groups and individuals affected.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *4.<\/p>\n

With respect to Plaintiffs\u2019 effective accommodation claim, the Ninth Circuit opined that the District Court erred in finding Plaintiffs would not be adequate class representatives due to a \u201cconflict of interest with members of their proposed class\u201d because the District Court only \u201cspeculat[ed] as to conflicts that may develop at the remedy stage.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0 For example, if Fresno State \u201creinstate[s] at least one women’s sports team,\u201d the Ninth Circuit reasoned that it was only speculation that \u201cplaintiffs would be able to advocate for the reinstatement of the women’s lacrosse team at the expense of other women’s teams.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *4-*5.\u00a0 At the remedies stage, however, the Ninth Circuit determined that Fresno State \u201ccan comply with Title IX without reinstating women’s sports teams by leveling down programs instead of ratcheting them up to achieve substantial proportionality between male and female athletics opportunities.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\u00a0 Further, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that if Fresno State reinstates women\u2019s sports teams at the remedies stage, the District Court did not identify any \u201cevidence suggesting plaintiffs would have input into which teams are to be reinstated.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

In addition, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court erred by failing to \u201cindependently analyze the equal treatment claim,\u201d and evaluate whether a conflict of interest exists with the respect to the claim.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *5.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit directed the District Court to analyze the Plaintiffs\u2019 equal treatment claim in light of the \u201cconclusion that the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek under their effective accommodation claim does not necessarily require reinstatement of the women’s lacrosse team\u201d and to \u201cspecifically assess whether a conflict exists under the equal treatment claim.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *5-*6.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit vacated the denial of class certification and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the class certification issue.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *6.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision in Anders <\/em>makes it easier for plaintiffs to certify a class in the Title IX context by messaging that challenges to the adequacy of a class representative in a Title IX lawsuit must be based on an actual conflict of interest.\u00a0 Importantly, any challenges to class certification based on the fairness of a potential remedy will likely fail as too \u201cspeculative.\u201d\u00a0 Any entity that must comply with Title IX, and finds itself the potential victim of a class action based on Title IX, should keep this distinction in mind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Duane Morris Takeaways: On January 17, 2024, in Anders, et al. v. California State University Fresno, et al., No. 23-15265, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1063 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024), the Ninth Circuit vacated the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California\u2019s decision to deny Plaintiffs\u2019 renewed motion … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Vacates Class Certification Denial In Fresno State Title IX Lawsuit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7],"class_list":["post-1127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1127"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}