Titan Volleyball Team to Get Its Day in Court

The Cal State Fullerton volleyball team Monday received a Feb. 20 court date for a preliminary injunction hearing, in which the team will seek to have the school’s decision to drop the program overturned.

Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Eleanor M. Palk also granted the team and Coach Jim Huffman’s request for a temporary restraining order against the school’s action under one stipulation: Huffman cannot sign any recruits until after the injunction hearing.

In effect, the temporary restraining order allows the team to use school facilities and practice together under Huffman’s supervision until the hearing, which will go before Judge Floyd H. Schenk in West Orange County Municipal Court in Westminster.

The school had previously assured that funding for volleyball players’ scholarships will continue through the spring semester, and Huffman will be paid through the end of this month.

“Our one bone of contention was recruitment, and that was resolved in our favor,” Fullerton Athletic Director Bill Shumard said. “We didn’t want to see potential student-athletes recruited to a school where there might not be a program.”

Huffman, whose program was dropped along with men’s gymnastics last Tuesday, saw the temporary restraining order and court date as reasons to be optimistic that volleyball can be restored by the 1992 season next fall.

“At least it starts operations from zero to ground level,” Huffman said. “It also assures we’ll be able to use the facilities.”

There are no assurances, though, that volleyball will be reinstated--that will be determined by Judge Schenk--or that the team will stay intact until the hearing.

Becky Howlett, the team’s best player, said Monday that most players are looking for other schools to attend. And with Wednesday being the first day players can sign national letters of intent, time and available scholarships are running out.

Despite a sworn deposition filed in court, in which Howlett states she’ll have “virtually no hope of getting a scholarship from another school at this late stage,” Howlett said Monday that several highly rated schools, including Nebraska, Washington State, Louisiana State and San Jose State, have made scholarship offers.

Howlett added that her deposition was taken last Wednesday by Berkeley attorney Kirk Boyd, who is representing the team in the case, and that she received the offers afterward.

“We’re all behind Jim--it wasn’t right what the school did--but so much is in the air now, it’s hard to say what we’ll do,” said Howlett, a sophomore. “I think I’m going to leave. I don’t feel my future is here because I don’t feel loyal to the school, but it’s still worth fighting for the team’s future.”

Though much opposition to the school’s action has focused on possible violations of Title IX, the federal statute requiring that men and women be treated equally in all areas of education, the team’s fight will instead focus on alleged violations of the California Education Code and California Constitution.

The plaintiffs in the case--Huffman, eight current players and two who had made oral commitments to attend Fullerton--allege that the defendants “have engaged in sex discrimination by their policies and practices of providing unequal budgets, scholarships, facilities, staffing and other resources to women’s athletic programs when compared to men’s athletic programs.”

Listed as defendants in the complaint are school President Dr. Milton Gordon, California State University Chancellor Barry Munitz and the CSU Board of Trustees. They are represented by Nancy Carlin, legal counsel for the CSU Board of Trustees.

The complaint contains several statistics that show a “gross disparity” between Fullerton’s men’s and women’s athletic programs, which could be in violation of sections 66016 and 8924 of the California Education Code.

The sections provide that “opportunities for participation in intercollegiate athletic programs in the . . . campuses of the California State University . . . be provided on as equal a basis as is practicable to male and female students,” and that “comparable incentives and encouragements be offered to females to engage in athletics.”

According to statistics Huffman compiled using athletic department budgets, men make up 44.4% of the student body, but 73.6% of the positions available in sports; the school provides $699,225 in athletic scholarships for men and $272,947 for women, and this year’s budget is slated to give about $2.3 million to men’s athletic programs and $960,000 to women’s programs.

Additional statutory language calls for parity and not disparity between men’s and women’s programs, and Section 89242 of the Education Code provides that the Board of Trustees must report the progress that is being made toward gender equity.

But the plaintiffs claim the defendants’ actions are regressive because the termination of volleyball will decrease the number of women participating in athletics by 12%.

The plaintiffs also contend that the secretiveness of the decision--neither Huffman nor his players was informed of the action until it was announced last Tuesday--is in violation of of due process protected by the California Constitution.

Finally, the complaint contends that the school is bound under the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel to honor its promises regarding the women’s volleyball program.

Because Huffman was allowed to actively recruit players in December and January, and because there was no indication the team was in jeopardy, the plaintiffs claim there was an implied promise that the program will continue.

Huffman said that only a few days before the termination announcement, Shumard met Marie Motile, who was in the process of transferring from Cal State Los Angeles to Fullerton to play volleyball, and the athletic director said nothing about the impending move.

“On the contrary, he gave every indication that the future of Fullerton volleyball was secure,” Huffman said in court documents.

But Shumard said he merely said, “Hi, it’s nice to meet you,” to Motile.

“There were absolutely no promises or statements made to encourage her,” Shumard said. “I wouldn’t have been foolish enough to indicate great promise for a program I knew was in jeopardy.”