Cal State System in a Title IX Showdown : Jurisprudence: Cal State system and San Jose State sued for violating code requiring equal opportunities for women in athletics.

Women’s sports advocates across the country used Thursday’s National Women in Sports Day to press the issue of gender equity in college athletics.

In Sacramento and San Francisco, press conferences were held to announce the filing of a lawsuit against the 19-school California State University system and a separate suit against San Jose State University, both complaints alleging state gender equity violations in their athletic departments.

In Boston, oral arguments were heard Thursday on Brown University’s emergency appeal of a federal judge’s Dec. 22 order requiring Brown to immediately reinstate its women’s gymnastics and volleyball teams to their former status as fully funded varsity sports.

And at UCLA, members of the women’s soccer team handed out flyers that said, “Fight for Equality for Women in Sports,” and lobbied to have their sport upgraded from the club level to the NCAA-sanctioned level. A team member also said the club is planning legal action against the school because it believes UCLA is not complying with gender equity laws.

“The trend is clearly toward finally forcing schools to comply with Title IX,” said Arthur Bryant of the Washington, D.C.-based Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, which is handling the Brown case.

“For the last 12 or 13 years there was very little movement toward equality. As a result of a whole variety of things coming together at the same time, not the least of which is women realizing their rights and suing over them, schools will be forced to comply. It’s unfortunate that that’s what it takes, but schools haven’t been complying with the law.”

The California chapter of the National Organization for Women is listed as a plaintiff in each of the California suits, and former San Jose State assistant athletic director Mary Zimmerman, whose position was eliminated because of budget cuts, is one of the plaintiffs in the San Jose suit.

The CSU system suit was filed Wednesday afternoon in San Francisco Superior Court, and the San Jose State suit was filed Wednesday afternoon in Santa Clara Superior Court.

The California suits are challenging schools on grounds that they are in violation of California Education Codes requiring equal opportunities for women in athletics and equitable funding of male and female sports.

The Brown suit alleges that the school’s decision to drop women’s sports is in violation of Title IX, the federal law that requires male and female students to be treated equally in all areas of education.

“Unfortunately, getting women on equal footing in sports is going to take some litigation,” said San Francisco attorney Jared Huffman, who is representing NOW in both California suits.

“Two things are happening, both here and across the country. There’s a general awakening--people are becoming enlightened about gender equity laws, some through litigation, some through groups like NOW. And as people speak out about gender equity, they get fired. It’s the old-boy system resisting change.”

Huffman’s brother, Jim, is the former Cal State Fullerton women’s volleyball coach who was fired last March in the wake of his gender equity lawsuit against the school.

The suit, prompted by the school’s January, 1992, decision to drop volleyball, led to an out-of-court settlement in which Fullerton agreed to reinstate volleyball and adopt a 10-year plan to achieve equity for women athletes.

Jim Huffman filed a $1.2-million wrongful termination suit against the school in December, claiming Fullerton administrators fired him in retaliation for his previous lawsuit. In another development Thursday, a California deputy attorney general representing the school filed an answer to Huffman’s complaint in Orange County Superior Court.

The defendants in the case--CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz, Fullerton school President Milton A. Gordon, Athletic Director Bill Shumard, Vice President for Personnel Jack Bidell and the CSU Board of Trustees--deny all of the allegations in Huffman’s complaint.

Both sides in the case will now enter the discovery phase, and a status conference has been scheduled for June, at which point a trial date will be set.

“This is a garden-variety retaliatory discharge case,” said Jared Huffman, who also is representing his brother. “They’re not going to be able to take shelter in any of the immunities and privileges that apply to certain types of government conduct.”