Stanley v. University of Southern California case brief summary
13 F.3d 1313 (1994)
CASE FACTS
When appellant coach entered into contract negotiations as the head coach of women's basketball, she demanded the same salary as the men's head basketball coach, and subsequently rejected a three-year contract with a substantial salary increase. After she was offered a one year contract with another offer of a higher salary, appellant brought an action seeking compensatory and injunctive relief.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the order of the lower court that denied a preliminary injunction in a sex discrimination and retaliation action, in favor of appellees, college and athletic director, because the law and facts did not clearly favor appellant coach when the male and female head coach positions were not substantially equal, a one year contract offer was not retaliation, and the balance of hardships did not tip sharply in appellant's favor.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
13 F.3d 1313 (1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant coach sought review of the
order of the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, which denied a motion for a preliminary injunction in a
sex discrimination and retaliation action, in favor of appellees,
college and athletic director.CASE FACTS
When appellant coach entered into contract negotiations as the head coach of women's basketball, she demanded the same salary as the men's head basketball coach, and subsequently rejected a three-year contract with a substantial salary increase. After she was offered a one year contract with another offer of a higher salary, appellant brought an action seeking compensatory and injunctive relief.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the order of the lower court that denied a preliminary injunction in a sex discrimination and retaliation action, in favor of appellees, college and athletic director, because the law disfavored mandatory injunctions and appellant failed to demonstrate that the laws and facts were clearly in her favor.
- Moreover, appellee college was not required to pay appellant the same salary as the men's coach because there was a substantial difference in their responsibilities, qualifications, and the revenue generated by their teams.
- Appellee college's one year contract offer did not demonstrate discrimination or retaliation when the record showed the men's coach was made the same offer.
- Finally, the court held that the balance of hardships did not tip sharply in appellant's favor.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the order of the lower court that denied a preliminary injunction in a sex discrimination and retaliation action, in favor of appellees, college and athletic director, because the law and facts did not clearly favor appellant coach when the male and female head coach positions were not substantially equal, a one year contract offer was not retaliation, and the balance of hardships did not tip sharply in appellant's favor.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment