|
|
 |
 |   |
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE | |
Brown out Top-notch school's Title IX dispute nearly over
Brown University's long, humiliating Title IX battle is nearing an end. And it will come to a close with a whimper. More than 10 years after the school tried to eliminate its women's gymnastics and volleyball programs, the fight has been reduced to an argument over attorneys' fees and photocopying costs. Title IX is, of course, the federal law enacted in 1972 that requires equal opportunities for both men and women in college sports. With the notable exceptions of Brown and few other schools, most colleges and universities have had little difficulty complying with a reform that was long overdue. It was not exactly radical stuff. After all, the law was the brainchild of noted social engineer Richard Nixon. But 20 years after the passage of Title IX, Brown attacked. Along the way it has suffered nine major losses in court, including a refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to so much as glance at the university's arguments against equal opportunities for its female athletes. The years of scorched-earth litigation have left Brown facing a court order requiring the school to pay more than $1 million in attorneys' fees to the lawyers representing the students who challenged its treatment of women's athletics. In the past 10 years Brown hasn't been able to make a major decision involving its athletic program without first seeking court approval. Through a succession of rulings and settlements, the school has been forced, kicking and screaming, into a series of surrenders, restructuring its athletic department to offer numerous women's sports. Earlier this year, the attorneys for Brown's female athletes let it be known that they were willing to settle the case for $950,000, plus interest, for their work. (The rules governing Title IX litigation state that the "prevailing party" shall collect its fees from the loser.) In a move that typifies Brown's stubborn approach to Title IX, the school's attorneys then suggested in a brief this spring that the female athletes were not the "prevailing party." That's a little like Henry Kissinger or Robert McNamara suggesting the U.S. was somehow the "prevailing party" in the Vietnam War. Magistrate David Martin of U.S. District Court in Providence, R.I., was unimpressed by Brown's suggestions. On August 10, he used only 12 lines of a 120-page opinion to decide that the women were indeed the "prevailing party" and awarded their attorneys $1,059,000 in fees, more than the attorneys had even requested. But Martin refused to give the students and their attorneys interest on the fees. The "prevailing party" is now appealing that part of the ruling, a sign of the rancor that has developed over the decade of court battles. Brown did manage one victory in the fee dispute. In its 129-page argument, the university's attorneys attacked the student-athletes' use of photocopiers. The xeroxing was excessive, the Brown attorneys argued. And, for a change, they won. The judge disallowed nearly $13,000 of the students' photocopying expenses and mandated that Brown pay only $3,647.20. Is it now over? It ought to be. The only remaining issue is the winning lawyers' claim for interest on their fees. It's a dispute over less than $600,000. That's the kind of thing that would be settled quickly in the average lawsuit. Will cooler heads finally prevail? Brown officials refuse to discuss how much the university has spent on its own attorneys. It's likely that Brown's expense was at least double the students' legal fees. But the real mystery is why Brown, a highly respected university offering a top-of-the-line liberal education, ever started this embarrassing fight. There is a sign of hope. The first name of Brown's new president is Ruth -- Ruth Simmons arrived on the job in June. But in this case, you would be wise not to read too much into names. Two of the lawyers leading the school's fight against Title IX were Beverly (Ledbetter) and Maureen (Mahoney). Sports Illustrated legal analyst Lester Munson regularly holds court on
sports law and business matters on CNNSI.com. The opinions expressed here are
solely those of the writer.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
