Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1

. , -.-~----~.

-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT £~Tl~~i~';

:,:l':;~: i,_."

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OFITEXASi':~'

DALLAS DIVISION I

~...._- . -"---,

l_~~8200/ :

SHEILA BEAL, as parent and next friend

)

of her minor daughter, AMBER NEELY;

)

RICK and LYNN MALONEY, as parents

)

and next friend of their minor daughter,

)

ALLISON MALONEY; RICK and LYNN )

MALONEY as parents and next friend of

)

their minor daughter, KATIE MALONEY; )

CHARLES V. EMMETT, as parent and

)

next friend of his minor daughter, VALERIE )

KAY EMMETT; and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MIDLOTHIAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL )

DISTRICT # 070908 OF ELLIS COUNTY, )

TEXAS; MOLLY HELMLINGER, in her

)

official capacity as Superintendent; and

)

Does 1 through 50,

)

)

Defendants.

)

By _ _ _ _ _ _ __

' - - - - - - - - 1..1 ,-' ,., : ~ ..

- - . - - - . . . .-

CASE NO.:
S -0 1 (; VO 746 m II

COMPLAINTCLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION The above-captioned Plaintiffs, as parents and next friend of their minor daughters, and on behalf of all others similarly situated ("Plaintiffs"), respectfully file this Complaint against Defendants, Midlothian Independent School District #070908 ofEllis County, Texas (hereinafter ""Midlothian Public Schools"); Molly Helmlinger, in her official capacity as Superintendent; and Does 1 through 50, and allege as follows:

1

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. This action is posed as a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought on behalf of female students at Midlothian Public Schools in Midlothian. Texas. Defendants have violated (1) Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, 20 U.S.c. §1681 et seq. ("Title IX") and the regulations adopted thereto, and (2) the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983, by illegally denying the female students at Midlothian Public Schools (1) an equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics and (2) the equal treatment and benefits that must necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate. 2. Defendants' denial of equal participation and equal treatment and benefits constitutes discrimination against the named plaintiffs and all members of the class based solely on their gender. Specifically, as to unequal participation opportunities, Defendants have discriminated against female students at Midlothian Public Schools in the accommodation of student interests and abilities in athletics by selecting and offering sports and/or levels of competition in a manner which discriminates against female students. Notwithstanding the significant number offemale students at Midlothian Public Schools who have the interest and abilities necessary to participate in athletics, Defendants have refused to provide them with an equal opportunity to do so. Furthermore, as to unequal treatment and benefits, Defendants have discriminated against Midlothian Public Schools' female students in the following areas: (1) funding of athletics (2) equipment and supplies; (3) travel and/or meals; (4) opportunity to receive qualified coaching; (5) assignment and/or compensation of coaches; (6) provision of locker rooms and facilities for both practice and competition; and (7) provision of training facilities and services.
2

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3
3. This action seeks to redress the deprivation ofthe named Plaintiffs' daughters' rights and the rights of the class to an equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics and to receive the equal treatment and benefits which must necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate. This action seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated the rights of Midlothian Public Schools' female students under federal law and the United States Constitution. This action further seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to immediately cease their discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects of their discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects of their discriminatory conduct.
4. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief which, among other things, requires that Defendants sponsor and fund a sufficient number of additional athletic teams and/or levels of teams for female students to obtain meaningful participation opportunities which are comparable to those offered to male students enrolled at Midlothian Public Schools.
5. Plaintiffs further seek injunctive reliefwhich requires that Defendants provide the girls' athletic teams at Midlothian Public Schools with equal treatment and benefits as Midlothian Public Schools already provides to its boys' athletic teams.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The first claim arises under 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. and its interpreting regulations. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343( a)( 4). 7. The second claim also arises under 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. and its interpreting regulations. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).
3

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4
8. The third claim arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).
9. Jurisdiction for declaratory and other relief is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.
10. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). These claims arose in Midlothian, Texas, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
THE PARTIES 11. Plaintiff Sheila Beal is the parent of Amber Neely, a 15-year-old 10th grade student at Midlothian Public Schools. Amber is a talented athlete who participates in softball. Her opportunities to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics are not comparable to the opportunities afforded to boys who are similarly situated. In addition, she has endured the unequal treatment and benefits directed by Midlothian Public Schools toward their female athletes. The Beals are residents of Midlothian, Texas, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Plaintiffs Rick and Lynn Maloney are the parents of Allison Maloney, a 16year-old 11 th grade student at Midlothian Public Schools. Allison is a talented athlete who participates in volleyball. Her opportunities to participate in interscholastic and other schoolsponsored athletics are not comparable to the opportunities afforded to boys who are similarly situated. In addition, she has endured the unequal treatment and benefits directed by Midlothian Public Schools toward their female athletes. The Maloneys are residents of Midlothian, Texas, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5
13. Plaintiffs Rick and Lynn Maloney are the parents ofKatie Maloney, a 15-yearold 9th grade student at Midlothian Public Schools. Katie is a talented athlete who participates in volleyball, basketball, softball and track. Her opportunities to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics are not comparable to the opportunities afforded to boys who are similarly situated. In addition, she has endured the unequal treatment and benefits directed by Midlothian Public Schools toward their female athletes. The Maloneys are residents of Midlothian, Texas, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
14. PlaintiffCharles V. Emmett is the parent ofValerie Kay Emmett, a 16-year-old 10th grade student at Midlothian Public Schools. Valerie is a talented athlete who participates in softball and tennis. Her opportunities to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics are not comparable to the opportunities afforded to boys who are similarly situated. In addition, she has endured the unequal treatment and benefits directed by Midlothian Public Schools toward their female athletes. The Emmetts are residents of Midlothian, Texas, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
15. Defendant Midlothian Independent School District # 070908 of Ellis County, Texas is a public school district authorized by Texas law to operate and control Midlothian Public Schools, where the Plaintiffs' daughters are students. Therefore, Midlothian Public Schools' conduct is considered state action under 42 U.S.c. §1983. Defendant Midlothian Independent School District is located in Midlothian, Texas, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the passage of Title IX, Midlothian Public Schools has received and continues to receive federal financial assistance and the benefits therefrom. Therefore, all programs at Midlothian Public Schools, including athletics, are subject to the requirements of Title IX.
5

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6
16. Defendant Molly Helmlinger is the Superintendent of Schools at Midlothian Public Schools. Ms. Helmlinger is a resident of the state of Texas and thus is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
17. The named Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Does ISO, but believe them to be employees of Midlothian Public Schools or members of the Midlothian Public Schools School Board. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint to set forth their true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the discriminatory actions alleged herein and that each is a resident of the State of Texas and thus is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 18. The named Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of their minor daughters, and, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for declaratory and injunctive relief, on behalfof all present and future female students enrolled at Midlothian Public Schools who participate, seek to participate, or are deterred from participating in interscholastic and/or other school-sponsored athletics at Midlothian Public Schools. 19. Each of the named Plaintiffs' daughters is a student at Midlothian Public Schools and is an athlete who is subjected to Midlothian Public Schools' unequal treatment and benefits. 20. In bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to require Defendants to comply with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by ending their discriminatory policies toward the girls' athletics programs in
6

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7
Midlothian Public Schools. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Midlothian Public Schools to fund and sponsor girls' sports so that the interests and abilities of all female students at Midlothian Public Schools are accommodated in a nondiscriminatory manner. Plaintiffs propose to represent all female students at Midlothian Public Schools who wish to participate in any interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics that are not funded and sponsored by Midlothian Public Schools. In addition, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive reliefto remedy discrimination against current and future female athletes at Midlothian Public Schools regarding their receipt of treatment and benefits which are not comparable to those received by the male athletes.
21. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. It is unknown how many of the current Midlothian Public Schools female students or how many future Midlothian Public Schools female students would seek to participate in interscholastic or other school-sponsored athletics if additional opportunities were available. Moreover, joinder of all members is impractical because members of the class who may suffer future injury are not capable of being identified at this time.
22. There are many questions oflaw and fact common to the class, including: (a) whether female students at Midlothian Public Schools are being deprived of equal opportunities to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics, (b) whether female students at Midlothian Public Schools are receiving unequal treatment and benefits in comparison to the male students at Midlothian Public Schools, and (c) whether Defendants have been and are discriminating against girls in Midlothian Public Schools' interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletic programs in violation ofTitle IX and the United States Constitution.
7

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8
23. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The types of gender discrimination which Plaintiffs' daughters have suffered as a result of their gender include: (1) exclusion from opportunities to participate in the interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletic programs at Midlothian Public Schools and (2) receipt of unequal treatment and benefits in Midlothian Public Schools' interscholastic or other schoolsponsored athletic programs. These are typical of the types of gender discrimination which members of the class have suffered, are suffering, and, unless this Court grants relief, will continue to suffer.
24. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action rigorously in order to secure remedies for the entire class.
25. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE IX 26. Title IX, enacted in 1972, provides in relevant part: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 made Congress' intent plain that "program or activity," as used in Title IX, applies to any program or activity so long as
8

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9
any part of the public institution receives federal financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. § 1687. Thus, Midlothian Public Schools is subject to Title IX even ifnone of the funding for either its girls' or boys' athletic programs comes specifically from federal sources.
27. In 1975, the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare (the predecessor of the United States Department of Education ("DOE")) adopted regulations interpreting Title IX. These regulations are codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 106. (the "Regulations").
28. With regard to athletic programs, § 106.41(a) of 34 C.F.R. provides that interscholastic athletics are included within the "program or activity" requirements of Title IX:
No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against III any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient.. .. 29. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) specifies ten (10) factors that are to be considered in the determination of equal athletic opportunity: 1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively
accommodate the interest and abilities of members of both sexes; 2. The provision of equipment and supplies; 3. Scheduling of games and practice time; 4. Travel and per diem allowance; 5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring; 6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; 7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; 8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
9

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10
9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; and 10. Publicity. Another factor to be considered is a school's "failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex." ld. 30. In 1979, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education ("OCR") issued a policy interpretation of Title IX and the Regulations. This policy interpretation is found at 44 Fed. Reg. 71413 (1979) (the "Policy Interpretation"). 31. The Policy Interpretation provides that, in order to comply with Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c), schools must provide equal athletic opportunities in three general areas: (1) awarding ofscholarships (aimed primarily at problems at the intercollegiate level); (2) participation opportunities (including both the number of opportunities and whether the selection of sports and the level of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes); and (3) treatment and benefits. 44 Fed. Reg. at 71414. Although the scholarship regulations are not at issue in this complaint, equal participation opportunities and equal treatment and benefits are. 32. According to the Policy Interpretation, compliance in the area of equivalent participation opportunities is to be determined by the following three-part test: (1) whether interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletic participation1 opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
1Although the Policy Interpretation refers to "intercollegiate" sports, it is applicable to all recipients of federal education funds, including high schools, and is, thus, applicable to interscholastic high school sports as well as intercollegiate sports. 34 C.F.R. § 106.11. See also, 44 Fed. Reg. at 71413 which provides that the Policy Interpretation's "general principles will often apply to ... interscholastic athletic programs which are also covered by the Regulations."
10

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11
(2) where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities ofthe members of that sex; or (3) where the members of one sex are underrepresented among interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. See 44 Fed. Reg. at 71418. 33. Under both the Regulations and the Policy Interpretation, compliance in the area of equal treatment and benefits is assessed based on an overall comparison of the male and female athletic programs, including an analysis of factors (2) through (10) of34 C.F.R. § 106.41 (c) listed above and an analysis of whether the necessary funds are provided for teams of both sexes. 34. The Regulations require that sponsors of interscholastic and other schoolsponsored athletics (such as Midlothian Public Schools) take such remedial actions as are necessary to overcome the effects of gender discrimination in violation of Title IX. See 34 C.F .R. § 106.3(a). On information and belief, any remedial actions which Midlothian Public Schools has taken in the past have been insufficient to satisfy Midlothian Public Schools' obligations under Title IX.
11

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12
35. The Regulations further require that sponsors of interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics comply with the Regulations within three years oftheir effective date (which was July 21, 1975). Now, more than twenty-five (25) years later, Midlothian Public Schools has still not fully complied with Title IX.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 36. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a state shall not" deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 37. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants may be held personally liable for their actions in violating Plaintiffs' daughters' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 38. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to end Defendants' unequal, discriminatory, and unlawful treatment of female student athletes. Because of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs' daughters continue to be deprived of the rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution and the laws ofthe United States. Failure to grant the injunctive relief requested will result in irreparable ham1 to Plaintiffs' daughters in that Plaintiffs' daughters' Fourteenth Amendment rights will be violated and that Plaintiffs' daughters will never be able to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics on an equal basis with their male classmates, ifat all. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law for this harm. This threatened harm far outweighs any possible harm that granting injunctive reliefmight cause Defendants. Finally, the injunctive reliefsought would in no way disserve the public interest but, on the contrary, would prevent discrimination based on gender and would promote the goal of full equality before the law.
12

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13
ATTORNEYS' FEES 39. Plaintiffs have been required to retain the undersigned attorneys to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: TITLE IX (Unequal Participation Opportunities)
(Class action against Midlothian Public Schools only) 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 inclusive of this Complaint. 41. By offering certain opportunities to male students to participate 111 interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics, Midlothian Public Schools has demonstrated its determination that athletic opportunities provide educational benefits that should be supported by the school system. Plaintiffs agree with this determination that athletic opportunities provide valuable educational benefits. For this very reason, Plaintiffs contend that their daughters - and all of the female students at Midlothian Public Schools should have equal access and opportunity to receive these same benefits that the male students at Midlothian Public Schools already have. Midlothian Public Schools historically has not provided and currently does not provide its female students with such equal access and opportunity. 42. Midlothian Public Schools has violated Title IX by discriminating against female students at Midlothian Public Schools, including the Plaintiffs' daughters, by among other things, failing to provide equal opportunities for females to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics.
13

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14
43. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Midlothian Public Schools has failed to comply with each of the three (3) parts of the test for determining the equal opportunity to participate in athletics under Title IX described in Paragraph 32 above. In particular, on information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that:
(1) The ratio offemale to male athletes at Midlothian Public Schools is not substantially proportionate to the overall ratio of female to male students at Midlothian Public Schools.
(2) Midlothian Public Schools does not have a sufficient history or continuing practice of program expansion.
(3) Midlothian Public Schools has failed to effectively accommodate the interests of the female students.
44. Female students have historically been and continue to be underrepresented in Midlothian Public Schools' interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletic programs. Despite this underrepresentation and despite the interest and abilities ofthe female students to participate on additional athletic teams, Midlothian Public Schools has failed to accommodate this and other interests.
45. Midlothian Public Schools' conduct has persisted despite the mandates of the Regulations, particularly 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.3(a) and 106.41(d).
46. Midlothian Public Schools' conduct violates 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., as interpreted by 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.31 and 106.41 and the Policy Interpretation thereof.
14

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: TITLE IX (Unequal Treatment and Benefits)
(Class action against Midlothian Public Schools only) 47. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference paragraphs 1 through 46 inclusive of this Complaint. 48. Midlothian Public Schools, by its conduct, has violated Title IX by discriminating against female students, including the Plaintiffs' daughters, by, among other things, failing to provide female athletes at Midlothian Public Schools with the same treatment and benefits which are comparable overall to the treatment and benefits provided to male athletes. 49. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Midlothian Public Schools has failed to comply with Title IX by failing to provide female athletes with comparable treatment and benefits including, but not limited to, the following areas:
(l) Midlothian Public Schools funds interscholastic and other schoolsponsored athletics in a manner that discriminates against female athletes.
(2) Midlothian Public Schools provides male athletes with newer equipment and supplies that are of better quality than those provided to female athletes.
(3) Female athletes are discriminated against in regard to meals and/or travel to games and/or practice sites.
(4) Female athletes have fewer opportunities to receive coaching because at least one of Midlothian Public Schools' female teams have more players per coach than some male teams.
15

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 1 Filed 04/18/01 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16
interscholastic and/or other school-sponsored athletics at Midlothian Public Schools. B. Enter an order declaring that Defendants have engaged in a past and continuing pattern and practice of discrimination against female students on the basis of gender in violation of Title IX and the regulations promulgated thereunder (including both unequal participation opportunities and unequal treatment and benefits), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. C. Issue a permanent injunction (a) restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, successors, and any other persons acting in concert with them, from continuing to maintain practices and policies of discrimination against female students on the basis of gender, and (b) requiring Defendants, immediately upon issuance of the injunctive order, to adopt and implement a budget and plan which corrects and remediates Defendants' violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a plan should include, among other things, (1) allowing female students the equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics, and (2) providing female athletes with treatment and benefits comparable to those provided to male athletes. D. Grant an expedited hearing and ruling on the permanent injunction request in C above. E. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to U.S.C. § 1988. F. Order such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
18

 
 Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 15 Filed 06/26/01 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
u.s. DISTRICT COURT

OR\G\Nf\l

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URI'
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUN 2 6 2001

SHEILA BEAL, et at,
Plaintiffs,

DALLAS DIVISION
§ § §

CLERK, U.S. DIsFIC T COURT

By
Deputy--

I

•

v.

§ Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-0746-L

§

MIDLOTHIAN lSD, et at,

§

§

Defendants.

§

MEDIATION ORDER

After reviewing the Joint Status Report filed in this case, the court has detennined that this

case is appropriate for mediation. The parties are therefore directed to participate in mediation by

October 29, 2001. The parties shall appear before a mediator of their mutual choosing and

participate in mediation. The mediator shall submit a report to the court within five days of the

mediation.

In accordance with § III(G) ofthis court's Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan,

the clerk of the court shall transmit to counsel a copy ofthe mediator report fonn. Counsel shall be

jointly responsible for ensuring that the mediator receives the fonn in a timely fashion. The

mediator is ordered to return the fonn to the clerk of the court (not to the undersigned's chambers)

in accordance with the clerk's instructions. The mediator's obligation to return the clerk's fonn is

separate from the obligation to submit a report to the court.

Z(' It is so ordered this

day of June, 2001.

Mediation Order - Solo Page

#ITED C . Case 3:01-cv-00746-L DocumSeTntA1T5ESFDileIdST06R/I2C6T/01 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28 Northern District of Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Summary

1. Civil action number: ---------------------------------------

2.

Style of case: _ _ ____________________________________________ __

3. Nature ofsuit: --------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.

o Method of ADR used:

Mediation

o Mini-Trial

o Summary Jury Trial

5. Outcome of ADR (Select aile):

o Parties did not use my services.

o Settled, in part, as a result of ADR.

o Settled as a result of ADR.

o Parties were unable to reach settlement.

o Continuing to work with parties to reach settlement (Note: provider mustfile
supplemental ADR Summary Form at conclusion ofhislher services).

6. What was your TOTAL fee: $____________ ____

7.

Duration of ADR: ___________________________________ (i.e., one day, two hours)

8. Please list persons in attendance (including party association, Le., defendant, plaintiff):

(Provider)

Please provide tile llalneS, addresses, alld teleplhlone number 0/CcOOllllllsel Oil
tile reverse o/tllis fornt.
9. Provider information:

Signature

Date

Address

Telephone

~
Provider must file completedform, ill duplicate, with the U.S. District Clerk upon completion ofADR

 
 Beal v. Midlothian Independent School Dist. 070908 of..., Not Reported in...

2002 WL 1033085 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas
Division.
Sheila. BEAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MIDLOTHIAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 070908 OF ELLIS COUNTY, Texas,
Molly Helmlinger, in her official capacity as Superintendent, and Does 1 through 50, Defendants.
No. Civ.A. 3:01–CV–0746L. | May 21, 2002.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LINDSAY, J.
*1 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Action Certification, filed July 17, 2001. Plaintiffs move for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). After having considered the motion, briefs, and the applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, and dismisses Plaintiffs’ effective accommodation claim for lack of standing.
I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants Midlothian Independent School District (“MISD”) and its Superintendent Molly Helmlinger, in her official capacity, alleging they (1) have been denied an equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and other school sponsored athletics, and (2) have received unequal treatment and benefit in these programs. Plaintiffs contend the denial of equal participation and unequal treatment constitute gender discrimination in violation of (1) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and (2) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the effects of Defendants’ alleged discriminatory conduct.
Plaintiffs are four students currently enrolled in the MISD. Plaintiff Amber Neely participates in softball; Plaintiff Allison Maloney participates in volleyball;

Plaintiff Katie Maloney participates in volleyball, basketball, softball, and track; and Plaintiff Valerie Kay Emmett participates in softball and tennis. Plaintiffs propose to represent “all present and future female students enrolled at Midlothian Independent School District who participate, seek to participate, or are deterred from participating in interscholastic and/or other school-sponsored athletics at Midlothian Independent School District.” Pls.’ Compl. ¶ 18.
II. Analysis
A. Title IX Title IX proscribes gender based discrimination in education programs or other activities receiving federal financial assistance. See Pederson v. Louisiana State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 877 (5th Cir.2000). Specifically, Title IX provides
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving financial assistance....
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Section 902 of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1682, authorizes agencies awarding federal financial assistance to promulgate regulations “ensuring that aid recipients adhere to § 901(a)’s mandate.” Pederson, 213 F.3d at 877 (quoting North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 514 (1982)). The applicable regulations provide
No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
*2 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a) (1999). Title IX and the regulations promulgated thereunder recognize three major areas of compliance: (1) awarding of scholarships, 34 C.F.R. § 106.37(c); (2) participation opportunities
1

Beal v. Midlothian Independent School Dist. 070908 of..., Not Reported in...

(“effective accommodation”), 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(1); and, (3) equivalence in treatment and benefits, 34 C .F.R. § 106.41(c)(2)-(10). See Cohen v. Brown Univ., 991 F.2d 888, 897 (1st Cir.1993) (describing areas of regulatory compliance); 44 Fed.Reg. 71413, 71414 (1979) (same).
In their complaint, Plaintiffs contend Defendants failed to accommodate student interest and failed to provide equal treatment and benefits. Compliance in the area of effective accommodation is determined by a three-part test in which the court must consider, among other factors, “[w]hether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes.” Pederson, 213 F.3d at 865 n. 4 (quoting Boucher v. Syracuse Univ., 164 F.3d 113, 115 n. 1 (2d Cir.1999)).1 Compliance in the area of equal treatment and benefits is assessed based on an overall comparison of the male and female athletic programs, including an analysis of a list of considerations provided by the applicable regulations. Id. (citation omitted).2

1

Under the three-part test, the court must consider

(1) whether interscholastic and other school

sponsored athletic participation opportunities for

male and female students are provided in numbers

substantially proportionate to their respective

enrollments; or

(2) whether the members of one sex have been and

are underrrepresented among interscholastic and

other school sponsored athletics, whether the

institution can show a history and continuing

practice of program expansion which is

demonstrably responsive to the developing interest

and abilities of the members of that sex; or

(3) whether the members of one sex are

underrepresented among interscholastic and other

school sponsored athletics and the institution

cannot show a continuing practice of program

expansion such as that cited above, whether it can

be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of

the members of that sex have been fully and

effectively accommodated by the present program.

44 Fed.Reg. at 71418.

2

These factors include

(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of

competition effectively accommodate the interests

and abilities of members of both sexes;

(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;

(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;

(4) Travel and per diem allowance;

(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic

tutoring;

(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and

tutors; (7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services; (9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; (10) Publicity. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) (1992); see also Cohen, 991 F.2d at 897.
B. Standing As an initial matter, the court addresses Plaintiffs’ standing to assert their claims under Title IX. Although the parties have not raised the issue of standing, federal courts maintain the independent obligation to examine their own subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 61 F.3d 442, 443–44 (5th Cir.1995). Plaintiffs bear the burden to allege facts demonstrating that they are the proper parties to bring their claims. Id. Moreover, the issue of standing presents a threshold matter the court must address before determining the propriety of class certification. 1 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS §§ 2.05–2.07 (3d ed.1992) (hereinafter, “NEWBERG”) (noting standing issue is distinct from the capacity to represent a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)). After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and the factual allegations contained therein, the court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their effective accommodation claims.
Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The case or controversy limitation requires that a party have standing to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Baker v. Carr, 396 U.S. 186, 204 (1962). To establish standing, a plaintiff must satisfy three requirements: (1) that she suffered an “injury in fact;” (2) that a causal relationship exists between the injury and the challenged conduct; and, (3) that the injury will likely be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992); see also Public Citizen v.. Bomer, 274 F.3d 212, 217 (5th Cir.2001). With respect to the first requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate the invasion of a legally protected interest which is “(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent.” Bomer, 274 F.3d at 217 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n. 1 (noting a “particularized injury” is one affecting the plaintiff in an individualized and personal way)).
2

Beal v. Midlothian Independent School Dist. 070908 of..., Not Reported in...

*3 The Fifth Circuit considered the issue of standing in the context of a Title IX claim in Pederson v. Louisiana State University. 213 F.3d at 872. In Pederson, a group of female college students sued Louisiana State University (“LSU”) asserting claims under Title IX for both effective accommodation and unequal treatment. The district court dismissed both claims for lack of standing. The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ effective accommodation claim, holding that a party establishes standing under a Title IX effective accommodation claim by demonstrating “that she is ‘able and ready’ to compete for a position on the unfielded team.” Id. at 871. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the unequal treatment claim because none of the named plaintiffs was a member of a varsity team, and thus did not personally suffer any injury due to LSU’s allegedly unequal treatment of its varsity athletes. Id. at 872; see also Boucher, 164 F.3d at 120 (dismissing plaintiffs’ equal treatment claims because none of the named plaintiffs was varsity athlete).
The court believes that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to maintain their Title IX unequal treatment claims. Plaintiffs have alleged that they currently participate in athletic activities sponsored by the school district and that the school district failed to provide them with comparable treatment and benefits. Pls.’ Compl. ¶ 48. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend MISD funds interscholastic and other school sponsored athletics in a manner that discriminates against female athletes; provides male athletes with newer equipment and supplies; discriminates against female athletes with regard to meals and travel to games and practice sites; provides fewer opportunities to receive coaching; supplies inferior locker, practice, and competition facilities; and, provides unequal access to these facilities. Id. ¶ 49. Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue their unequal treatment claims does not, however, automatically confer standing to pursue their effective accommodation claims. As the court explained in Pederson, “[s]tanding to challenge effective accommodation does not automatically translate into standing to challenge the treatment of existing varsity athletes.” 213 F.3d at 872. The court holds that the converse is also true; that is, standing to challenge the treatment of existing athletes does not automatically translate into standing to challenge effective accommodation.
In this case, the court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring Title IX effective accommodation claims. Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating they suffered an “injury in fact” or that Plaintiffs were “able and ready” to participate in an athletic opportunity not currently offered by the MISD. Instead, the factual

allegations in the complaint indicate that each of the Plaintiffs already participates in interscholastic athletic activities. See Pls.’ Compl. ¶¶ 11–14. The court is mindful that at the pleading stage “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice” to establish standing, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561; however, where, as here, Plaintiffs offer no factual allegations, specific or general, that demonstrate an injury in fact, the court may dismiss the claim. See Bomer, 274 F.3d at 219 (dismissing claim for lack of standing, stating “[i]n the absence of substantive factual allegations of injury, only an abstract claim remains.”); Pederson, 213 F.3d at 872. Other than one boilerplate, conclusory allegation made in reference to each student, Plaintiffs do not set forth any specific factual allegations that suggest Defendants failed to accommodate student interest in a nondiscriminatory manner.3 Moreover, Plaintiffs provide no factual allegations to indicate any of the Plaintiffs were “able and ready” to compete in an athletic endeavor not currently offered by Defendants. Accordingly, the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ effective accommodation claims for lack of standing because they do not satisfy the initial prong of the standing inquiry.

3

The only allegations Plaintiffs make with respect to

their effective accommodation claims are as follows:

“[Plaintiff’s] opportunities to participate in

interscholastic and other school sponsored athletics are

not comparable to the opportunities afforded to boys

who are similarly situated.” Pls.’ Compl. ¶¶ 11–14;

and, “Midlothian Public Schools has [sic] violated Title

IX by discriminating against female students ... by

among other things, failing to provide equal

opportunities for females to participate in

interscholastic and other school-sponsored activities.”

Id. ¶ 42. Nowhere do Plaintiffs offer a single factual

allegation that indicates the number of athletic

opportunities for male and female students at

Midlothian, the interest and abilities of the female

students at Midlothian in general, or even the specific

interest of the Plaintiffs in this case to participate in

interscholastic athletic activities not offered by the

school district. In short, Plaintiff have provided no

factual allegations that indicate any of the named

Plaintiffs has ever been denied an opportunity to

participate in athletic programs or has ever been

deterred from participating in athletic programs in the

MISD.

C. Rule 23 Requirements *4 Before a class may be certified, the court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Castano v.
3

Beal v. Midlothian Independent School Dist. 070908 of..., Not Reported in...

American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir.1996) (citing General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)). Under Rule 23(a), a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In addition, Plaintiffs must show that the defendants “acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that these requirements are satisfied, see Castano, 84 F .3d at 740, and the court enjoys broad discretion in making class certification determinations. Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 471–72 (5th Cir.1986).
Plaintiffs propose to represent “all present and future female students enrolled at Midlothian Public Schools who participate, seek to participate, or are deterred from participating in interscholastic and/or other school sponsored athletics at Midlothian Public Schools.” Pls.’ Compl. ¶ 18. Because the court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their effective accommodation claims, the court believes Plaintiff’s proposed class definition is too broad. See O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (“[I]f none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.”); see also 1 NEWBERG § 2.06. In other words, a named Plaintiff cannot bring a claim on behalf of others who would have standing by virtue of their injury in fact if they were named as plaintiffs instead. See 1 NEWBERG § 2.06 (stating “[s]tanding cannot be acquired through the back door of a class action”). Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiffs’ class definition.
A court may, however, “construe the complaint or redefine the class” if the court finds “plaintiff’s definition of the class ... unacceptable.” 7A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1759, at 111–12 (1986). Based on the court’s jurisdictional findings made above, and the foregoing Rule 23 analysis, the court certifies the following class:
All current and future female students enrolled in the Midlothian Independent School District who participate or are deterred from

participating in interscholastic and/or school sponsored athletics as a result of unequal treatment and/or the distribution of benefits.
*5 The court addresses the specific Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) requirements below.
1. Numerosity Rule 23(a) requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that joinder of all class members would be impracticable because of the numerosity of the putative class. The number of members in a proposed class is not determinative of whether joinder is impracticable. See Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir.1981). Instead, “the proper focus is not on numbers alone,” but on other relevant factors, including whether “the alleged class includes future and deterred [plaintiffs], [who are] necessarily unidentifiable. In such a case the requirement of Rule 23(a) is clearly met, for ‘joinder of unknown individuals is certainly impracticable.” Phillips v. Joint Legislative Comm., 637 F.2d 1014, 1022 (5th Cir.1981) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs seek to represent the rights of all female students in the MISD who are treated unequally because of their sex. Plaintiffs also allege that joinder is impracticable because members of the class who may suffer future injury are not capable of being identified at this time. Pls’ Compl. ¶ 21. The court thus finds Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement.
2. Commonality The Plaintiffs next must demonstrate commonality. The test for commonality is not demanding. Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 625 (5th Cir.1999); see also Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 994 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir.1993) (“The threshold of ‘commonality’ is not high.”) (citations omitted). “The interests and claims of the various plaintiffs need not be identical. Rather, the commonality test is met when there is ‘at least one issue, whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.” ’ James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d 551, 570 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 919 (2002) (quoting Forbush, 994 F.2d at 1106); see also Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir.1997). “[A]llegations of similar discriminatory practices generally meet the commonality requirement.” Lightbourn, 118 F.3d at 426.
Plaintiffs allege questions of law and fact that are common to the class, including whether the female students enrolled in the MISD are receiving unequal
4

Beal v. Midlothian Independent School Dist. 070908 of..., Not Reported in...

treatment and benefits in comparison to the male students in the district, and whether these facts constitute discrimination in violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Pls.’ Compl. ¶ 22. A finding of liability against Defendants will turn on a single issue with respect to the entire class; namely, whether the benefits and the treatment afforded the Plaintiffs by the school district were distributed in a manner inconsistent with Title IX. See, e.g., Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Assoc., 192 F.R.D. 568, 572 (W.D.Mich.1999) (finding commonality element met in Title IX class action suit). The court thus finds Plaintiffs satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a).
3. Typicality *6 Plaintiffs must also demonstrate that “the claims or defenses of the parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3). The “typicality” requirement “focuses on the similarity between the named Plaintiffs’ legal and remedial theories and the legal and remedial theories on those whom they purport to represent.” Lightbourn, 118 F.3d at 426. Both the commonality and typically requirements “serve as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.” Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 n. 13. As a result, “[t]he commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge.” Id.
Plaintiffs contend that their claims are based on the same legal theory as the other class members’ claims and that the claims arise from the same course of alleged discriminatory conduct by the Defendants. The court agrees. That there exists some factual distinction between the named Plaintiffs’ claims and the claims of the class members is insufficient to extinguish typicality. Lightbourn, 118 F.3d at 426; Communities for Equity, 192 F.R .D. at 573. Accordingly, the court holds Plaintiffs satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a).
4. Adequacy of Representation Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” “Differences between named Plaintiffs and class members render the named plaintiffs inadequate representatives only if those differences create conflicts between the named plaintiffs’ interests and the class members’ interests.” Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625–26. Additionally, the

plaintiffs’ attorney representing the class must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation. See Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 73 n. 10 (5th Cir.1973) (citations omitted).
Defendants contend that counsel for Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence regarding the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs to represent the class or the ability of Plaintiffs’ counsel to fund and prosecute this action.4 Plaintiffs’ counsel have described in some detail in the briefing papers their experience in conducting this particular type of litigation. Further, Plaintiffs and their counsel aver that they have committed the necessary funds to prosecute this action. The court believes this is all that is required under Rule 23(a) and Local Rules 23.2(b) and (c). The court thus finds Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)(4).

4

Defendants also contend that the named Plaintiffs

cannot represent the putative class because they

currently participate in athletic programs, and thus are

not members of a class of female students who have

allegedly been denied participation. Defendants

concern in this regard is rendered moot by the court’s

holding on Plaintiffs’ standing to assert the effective

accommodation claim and the court’s subsequent

reformulation of the class definition.

5. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements Finally, Plaintiffs must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) requires that the Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thus making final injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a while. In this context, “[injunctive] relief rather than monetary damages must be the ‘predominant’ form of relief the plaintiffs pursue.” James, 254 F.3d at 571 (citations omitted). In this case, Plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief. See Pls.’ Compl. ¶ 38. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).5

5

Defendants also maintain that certification is

unnecessary in this case because disposition of this

matter in favor of the named Plaintiffs would

automatically accrue to the benefit of all the putative

class members. The Fifth Circuit has not yet

determined whether “necessity” may be a factor in class

certification decisions, see Pederson, 213 F.3d at 867 n.

8; however, the court has indicated that the substantial

risk of mootness creates a necessity for class

certification in the Title IX context. Id.; see also Cook

v. Colgate, 992 F.2d 17, 19 (2d Cir.1993) (vacating as

5

Beal v. Midlothian Independent School Dist. 070908 of..., Not Reported in...

moot district court order of injunctive relief in Title IX case).

III. Conclusion

*7 For the reasons stated herein, the court dismisses

Plaintiffs’ Title IX effective accommodation claims for

lack of standing. The court further grants in part and

	  

denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

The court certifies a class of female students enrolled in

the Midlothian Independent School District as

All current and future female students enrolled in the Midlothian Independent School District who participate or are deterred from participating in interscholastic and/or school sponsored athletics as a result of unequal treatment and/or the distribution of benefits.

6

 
 Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 51 Filed 01/22/03 Page 1 of 2 PageID 259

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

SHEILA BEAL, as parent and next friend§

of her minor daughter, AMBER NEELY; §

RICK and LYNN MALONEY, as parents §

and next friend of their minor daughter, §

ALLISON MALONEY; RICK and LYNN §

MALONEY as parents and next friend of §

their minor daughter, KATIE MALONEY; §

CHARLES EMMETT, as Parent and

§

Next Friend of his minor daughter,

§

VALERIE KAY EMMETT; and on

§

on behalf of all others similarly

§

situated,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

MIDLOTHIAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL §

DISTRICT # 070908 OF ELLIS COUNTY, §

TEXAS; MOLLY HELMLINGER, in her §

official capacity as Superintendent; and §

Does 1 through 50,

§

§

Defendants.

§

r-----:-:------- -- --- -
u.s.~ ~~..;1';;.-:_ r:t-"~ '", ~ NORTHERI'; ;'fS;-c':IC;-:W Tk=X,\S
r<II.J >-~} 4 __'
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01CV746-L

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CAME ON for consideration the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, and the Court is of the opinion that dismissal should be ordered. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that any and all claims which were asserted or could have been asserted by any party against the other herein are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
696960.1/SP0/58596/0111112262002

Page 1

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 51 Filed 01/22/03 Page 2 of 2 PageID 260 =-,tt=..;....:...;...=--=,,:.---' 2002.
APPROVED:
AnORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
696960.1/SP0/58596/0111112262002

Page 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

 
 ORIGINAL J'
)

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 1 of 14 PageID 208

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

SHEILA BEAL, as parent and next friend§

of her minor daughter, AMBER NEELY; §

RICK and LYNN MALONEY, as parents §

and next friend of their minor daughter, §

ALLISON MALONEY; RICK and LYNN §

MALONEY as parents and next friend of §

their minor daughter, KATIE MALONEY; §

CHARLES EMMETT, as Parent and

§

Next Friend of his minor daughter,

§

VALERIE KAY EMMETT; and on

§

on behalf of all others similarly

§

situated,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

MIDLOTHIAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL §

DISTRICT # 070908 OF ELLIS COUNTY, §

TEXAS; MOLLY HELMLINGER, in her §

official capacity as Superintendent; and §

Does 1 through 50,

§

§

Defendants.

§

U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
SEP I I 2002
=--_ _ CLERK,U.S. DISTRICT COURT .By1 _ _ _ _ _~ ..,..:_ ::-_
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01CV746-L

CONSENT DECREE

This Consent Decree is entered by the Court based on an agreement between the

Plaintiffs, SHEILA BEAL as parent and next friend of her minor daughter, AMBER NEELY;

RICK and LYNN MALONEY, as parents and next friend of their minor daughter, ALLISON

MALONEY; RICK and LYNN MALONEY as parents and next friend oftheirminordaughter,

KATIE MALONEY; CHARLES V. EMMETT, as parent and next friend of his minor

daughter, VALERIE KAY EMMETT, individually and in their capacity as representatives

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111108232002

0(\

Page 1

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 2 of 14 PageID 209
of a class of individuals described as "all current and future female students enrolled in the Midlothian Independent School District who participate or are deterred from participation in interscholastic and/or school sponsored athletics as a result of unequal treatment and/or the distribution of benefits," (the "Class") and the Defendants, Midlothian Independent School District #070908 of Ellis County, Texas, and DR. MOLLY HELMLINGER, in her official capacity as Superintendent.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have sued the School District with respect to their claims that the School District has violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have contended that the School District has denied female students equal treatment and benefits that should accompany equal participation opportunities;
WHEREAS, the Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs' allegations and maintain that nothing in this Consent Decree constitutes an admission by the School District that action required on its part is not already in effect or that the School District is not already in compliance with applicable law;
WHEREAS, the parties to this Consent Decree agree that the School District is bound by the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the parties have jointly agreed, through their designated representatives, that the interests of the parties are best served by reaching agreement regarding the manner in which the District will comply with Title IX;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the School District desire to avoid the uncertainty, time and expense of maintaining and defending a lawsuit;

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111108232002

Page 2

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 3 of 14 PageID 210

WHEREAS, this Consent Decree represents the Plaintiffs' and the School District's mutual desire for the District to achieve or maintain compliance with Title IX and its implementing regulations, and the School District, by this Consent Decree, agrees to comply with the general mandates of Title IX and its regulations. 1
NOW THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree to settle this matter as set forth below.
1. The School District shall continue to encourage participation in school-sponsored sports. These efforts shall include: notifying female and male students of sports offered; insuring that interested female and male students have information available regarding scheduled try-outs for school sports; and publicly announcing the School District's support for female and male athletics.
2. The School District agrees to maintain a policy of commitment to providing transportation for female athletes for practice and competition that will be equivalent to that provided to male athletes.
3. The School District agrees to maintain a system for accounting for revenues and expenditures for male and female sports. A revenue and expenditure report shall be available from the School District, upon written request, within sixty (60) working days following the closure of the District's fiscal year, which shall show for each sport the amount expended and any revenues received with respect to the sport. An individual requesting copies of this information shall pay the District's customary charge for public records. An individual may also choose to inspect the records by appointment without

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,20 U.S.C. § 1681, e1§§.9.:..(1988}; OCR Regulations "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefitting from Federal Financial Assistance." 34 C.F.R. § 106 (1994).

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111108232002

Page 3

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 4 of 14 PageID 211
copying the records. Sources of revenues and expenditures include but will not be limited to general fund revenues, booster club donations, and all other third party donations or payments.
4. The School District agrees to maintain a policy of commitment to providing for off-season training to all female sports on a basis equivalent to that provided to male sports.
5. The School District agrees to maintain a policy to publish to students, as a part of the Student Handbook, its commitment to equal treatment to male and female student athletes. This information shall be published annually, whether in the Student Handbook or an alternate publication designed to reach students and their parents. The District shall publish in the Student Handbook the grievance procedure with which a student and/or parent must comply to report possible breach of the consent decree and as a prerequisite to any other legal remedy. The District shall list the District's Title IX Compliance Officer, his or her address, telephone number, and availability of a copy of the grievance procedure.
6. The School District agrees to maintain a policy of commitment to providing coach to athlete ratios for female sports which are equivalent to those ratios for male sports. Any variations of this policy shall be based on gender neutral factors.
7. The School District agrees to maintain a policy of commitment to avoid cancellation of games for gender reasons and providing that games are cancelled for female sports on a basis equivalent to the cancellation of games for male sports and shall follow the State UIL District guidelines regarding same.

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111108232002

Page 4

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 5 of 14 PageID 212

8. The School District shall agree to maintain a policy of commitment to provide summer camps to female sports on the same basis as male sports. If a coach cannot conduct such a camp, the School District shall direct the Athletic Director to arrange for another qualified coach to handle the summer camp.
9. The School District agrees to maintain a policy to provide trainers for female athletes on a basis equivalent to those provided to male athletes. The School District shall arrange for student trainers to participate in all sports on a gender neutral basis.
10. Forfacilities constructed from January 1, 2002 forward, the School District shall provide comparable athletic facilities for male and female athletes. Facilities shall be available to student-athletes on a gender-neutral basis. School District shall ensure that female and male athletes have equivalent locker room facilities in terms of size, access, amenities, quality and exclusivity of use, both in-season and off-season.
11. By or before one year following execution ofthis Consent Decree, the School District shall create a locker room facility on the Middle School Building property to be used by the High School softball team. The locker room shall be designated as the Lady Panthers' Locker Room and shall be publicized as such. The School District shail provide the softball team the same access to this locker room, throughout the year, as the baseball team has to its locker room. In addition, the School District shall provide this locker room, and lockers, of a size, quality, and number that are at least equivalent to that supplied to the baseball program.
12. The School District shall designate a girls' softball field for Midlothian High School which is comparable to the boys' baseball field on or adjoining the High School or Middle School property which specifically includes the Midlothian Sports Complex. The

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111/08232002

Page 5

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 6 of 14 PageID 213
School District shall maintain a policy that the softball team has access to and exclusivity of use of the softball field throughout MISD softball season. The School District shall maintain a policy that the softball team has use of the softball field that is at least equivalent to the boys' baseball teams' use of the baseball field throughout the year. The School District shall maintain a policy of monitoring the City of Midlothian's maintenance of the softball field, and to the extent necessary, shall provide maintenance of the softball field so as to keep the condition of the softball field in a condition of comparable quality to the baseball field when used by MISD teams. As long as the above provisions are met, this does not require the School District to construct a field on campus.
13. In regard to the softball and baseball competition fields, the School District shall provide comparable facilities for male and female athletes, in terms of both access and quality. For example and by illustration, in regard to the softball field, by or before one year following execution of this Consent Decree (to the extent not already provided), the School District shall provide the following features, either by itself through action sought from the City of Midlothian, or in participation with the City:
a) "Grandstand" type bleachers sufficient to accommodate all spectators at softball games and that is ADA compliant.
b) A press box that is aesthetically pleasing and fits within the design of the bleachers, and is equivalent in effect to that at the boys' baseball field. Prior to construction, the School District shall present to counsel for Plaintiffs a proposed plan for same for prompt review and input, which review and input could cause delay in completion of the press box beyond the one-year

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111/08232002

PageS

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 7 of 14 PageID 214

deadline. It is understood by the parties that this provision does not require

a press box that is precisely equivalent to that at the baseball field.

c) A scoreboard equivalent to that provided at the baseball field.

d) A permanent outfield fence set at dimensions that do not violate UIL

guidelines. This fence and backstop shall have windscreen and protective

top rail equivalent to that supplied at the baseball field.

e) A public address system that will produce sound equivalent to the sound

produced at the baseball field.

f) Handicap parking that complies with ADA requirements.

g) Cinder block dugouts equivalent in all features to those provided at the

baseball field, with a canvas sign promoting the softball team to be placed

on home softball dugout.

h) Two outdoor batting cages for use at the softball field.

i)

Bullpens, at the softball field, equivalent to those at the baseball field.

j)

A pitching machine for the use of the softball team.

k) Infield dirt material of quality at least as good as that of the baseball field.

14. The School District shall maintain a policy of commitment to providing

transportation for softball players to and from the high school to the softball field/locker

room site.

15. The School District shall provide softball players equivalent scheduled use

both as to time and convenience (on a rotating schedule as needed) of the indoor hitting

facility as compared to the baseball players.

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111108232002

Page 7

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 8 of 14 PageID 215

16. The School District shall maintain a policy to provide equipment, supplies, and uniforms for students and coaches who participate in school sponsored sports in a gender neutral manner. This provision shall include the quantity, quality, and replacement and/or repair of said equipment, supplies and uniforms.
17. The School District shall maintain a policy to provide a weight room schedule for use ofthe weight room(s) without regard to gender, and it shall provide equal allocation of time for usage of the weight room facilities for girls athletic teams as compared to boys' athletic teams. The District shall make provisions so that coaches of female and male teams receive special instruction regarding the value of strength and conditioning, proper weight lifting techniques for female and male athletes, and the use of the weight room to enhance athletic skills and training. The School District shall provide the weight room with dumb bell weights in the following ranges: 5, 8, 10 and 15 pounds.
18. The School District shall promote and publicize female sports and shall encourage individual female team coaches to utilize available opportunities to publicize female sports involvement and accomplishments. This means that the School District shall give equivalent attention to the female teams in connection with school announcements, advertisements, assemblies, sports banquets, signage, and school publications such as the yearbook. At the beginning of each semester, a pep rally will be held that will give recognition to all school sports on a gender neutral basis. To the extent that the School District or any of its employees contact the media regarding the results of school-sponsored athletic competition, School District and its employees shall equitably provide such assistance and information for the sports of both genders. In instances where media guides, programs, competitive schedules and other information are prepared,

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111/08232002

PageS

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 9 of 14 PageID 216
School District shall provide such items for the teams of both genders in a similar format and comparable size.
19. The School District shall maintain a policy of selecting coaches for all teams (male and female) using comparable criteria and with the same motivation to attract qualified and skilled coaches. Plaintiffs acknowledge that not all sports, teams or schools are able to attract equally qualified coaches. However, the School District shall utilize a gender-neutral system for attracting coaches for all of its teams and in determining the ratio of student athletes to coaches, acknowledging the importance of assigning experienced and qualified coaches in a gender-neutral manner, and doing so in a manner which does not treat female and male sports differently because of the gender of the team members.
20. It is understood and acknowledged by the parties hereto that the School District relies on the contributions of time, money, equipment and supplies that come from individual donors, organizations such as booster clubs, businesses, parents and others. The School District desires to retain the enormous benefits provided by private as well as public donors. However, the School District shall maintain a policy to not permit any infusion of non-school monetary or non-monetary contributions to result in programs which are unequal. School District acknowledges that it has a responsibility to monitor contributions and the effect contributions have on school-sponsored sports. School District recognizes that it has the responsibility to ensure that boys' and girls' sports are supported equitably, including through the proceeds of concessions, and that all sports are funded on a gender-neutral basis.

CONSENT DECREE
687971 4/SPO/58596/0111/08232002

Page 9

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 10 of 14 PageID 217

21. As part of this Consent Decree, School District ag rees that the School District and any of its administrators, officials or school board members, shall maintain a policy to treat the student Plaintiffs in the same manner as any other student enrolled at Midlothian I.S.D.
22. Plaintiffs, as well as all class members and their parents, shall as a prerequisite to any other legal remedy comply with the School District's grievance procedure to report possible breach of this Consent Decree.
23. In connection with this Consent Decree, School District agrees to pay the reasonable attorney's fees and costs connected with the instant action, to Ray Vasser and Samuel J. Schiller. The amount to be as determined by agreement of the parties or by the Court, within 30 days of such determination or agreement. The School District agrees that the amount due is the lodestar of reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate as agreed by the parties or as determined by the Court. In the event the parties are not able to reach agreement on the amount of fees and the issue is referred to the court, the Court will determine the reasonable attorney's fees. No other fees, costs or monetary damages of any kind or type will be due from Defendants to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel in this case.
24. (a) This Consent Decree is approved by and entered as an Order and Judgment of the Court and shall be subject to the full enforcement powers of the Court. The parties agree not to object to the Courts' authority to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree
(b) The Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to fully release and by this instrument do hereby release each other, their own attorneys, each other's attorneys, their

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111108232002

Page 10

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 11 of 14 PageID 218
insurers, employees, trustees, assigns and successors, of any and all claims, liabilities, or actions which either presently have or have had against the other existing as of the date of execution of this Consent Decree, except for the Plaintiffs' claim for attorney fees and costs related to this action. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to constitute or evidence an admission of liability or wrongdoing of any kind by Defendants, which is expressly denied.
25. The parties shall enter a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice, which shall dismiss all claims against all Defendants, and which shall be filed in this matter within five calendar days of the final disposition of all issues, including the issue of attorney fees.
26. This Consent Decree shall be binding on the successors, insurers, assigns, and transferees of the Defendants and the Plaintiffs.

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SP0/58596/0111/08232002

Page 11 - A

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 12 of 14 PageID 219
27. This Consent Decree contains the complete description ofthe terms between the parties. All material representations, understandings and promises of the parties are contained in this Consent Decree.
28. Any modifications to this Consent Decree must be set forth in writing and signed by the designated representatives of the Defendants and the Plaintiffs.
29. The parties acknowledge that each has been represented by legal counsel, of their choice, at all times material to this action and that they have had a full opportunity to consult with legal counsel throughout the legal proceedings occasioned by Plaintiffs'

Individually, and As Parent and Next Friend of AMBER NEELY
~~2~ Individually, and as Parent and Next Friend of ALLISON MALONEY

Individually, and As Parent and Next Friend of VALERIE KAY EMMETT
Individually, and as Pa nt and Next Friend of ALLISON MALONEY

RICK MALONEY Individually, and as Par nt and Next Friend of KATIE MALONEY

/.
Individually, and as rent and Next Friend of KATIE MALONEY

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SPO/58596/0111/06072002

Page 11 - B

Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02 Page 13 of 14 PageID 220
SCHILLER LAW FIRM
By:
Oklahoma ar Association #016067 RAYYASSER Oklahoma Bar Association #009944 Suite 200 4113 Cumby Road Cookeville, TN 38501 931-528-5050 931-528-5051 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CONSENT DECREE
687971.4/SPO/58596/0111/06072002

Page 12

• Case 3:01-cv-00746-L Document 41 Filed 09/11/02

Page 14 of 14 PageID 221

MIDLOTHIAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #070908 OF ELLIS, COUNTY, TEXAS
:By M Mtt!£t~~~ ~
Superintendent of Schools
APPROVED BY:
D. DBR.AD~LEYlKII11ii~rr~"~I~D
State Bar No. 11547550 NICOLE W. STAMMEL State Bar No. 24004995 STRASBURGER & PRICE, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 4300 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-651-4300 214-651-4330 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CONSENT DECREE

Page 13

 
 Case: 3:01-cv-746 As of: 01/26/2014 08:08 PM CST 1 of 6
ADR,CLOSED,SANDERSON
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:01−cv−00746−L

Beal, et al v. Midlothian ISD, et al Assigned to: Judge Sam A Lindsay Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/18/2001 Date Terminated: 08/16/2002 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Sheila Beal and on behalf of all others similarly situated on behalf of Amber Neely

represented by Samuel J Schiller Schiller Law Firm 4113 Cumby Rd Suite 200 Cookeville, TN 38501 931/528−5050 Fax: 931/528−5051 FAX Email: sjs@schillerlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Not Admitted

Ray Yasser Schiller Law Firm 4113 Cumby Rd Suite 200 Cookeville, TN 38501 931/528−5050 Bar Status: Not Admitted

Plaintiff
Charles V Emmett and on behalf of all others similarly situated on behalf of Valerie Kay Emmett

represented by Samuel J Schiller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Not Admitted

Ray Yasser (See above for address) Bar Status: Not Admitted

Plaintiff
Rick Maloney and on behalf of all others similarly situated on behalf of Allison Maloney on behalf of Katie Maloney

represented by Samuel J Schiller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Not Admitted
Ray Yasser (See above for address) Bar Status: Not Admitted

Plaintiff
Lynn Maloney and on behalf of all other similarly situated on behalf of Allison Maloney on behalf of

represented by Samuel J Schiller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Not Admitted

Case: 3:01-cv-746 As of: 01/26/2014 08:08 PM CST 2 of 6

Katie Maloney

Ray Yasser (See above for address) Bar Status: Not Admitted

V. Defendant Midlothian Independent School District #070908 of Ellis County Texas
Defendant Molly Helmlinger in her official capacity as Superintendent
Defendant Does 1−50

represented by Nicole Woods Stammel Strasburger &Price PO Box 50100 901 Main St Ste 4300 Dallas, TX 75250−0100 214/651−4300 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
D Bradley Kizzia Brown Fox Kizzia &Johnson PLLC 750 N. St. Paul Street Suite 1320 Dallas, TX 75201 469/893−9940 Fax: 214/613−3330 Email: brad@brownfoxlaw.com Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
represented by Nicole Woods Stammel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
D Bradley Kizzia (See above for address) Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing

Date Filed 04/18/2001 04/18/2001
04/18/2001 04/18/2001 04/18/2001
04/19/2001

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT−Class Action filed. Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt # 149796 (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by plaintiff Sheila Beal, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Charles V Emmett (2) (jrb) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
3 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Molly Helmlinger (1) (jrb) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
PRELIMINARY ASSIGNMENT TO Magistrate Judge Wm F Sanderson Jr (jrb) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
4 Application/MOTION by plaintiff Sheila Beal, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney to proceed without local counsel (2) (jrb) (Entered: 04/20/2001)
5 ORDER granting [4−1] motion to proceed without local counsel ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 4/20/01 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 04/20/2001)

Case: 3:01-cv-746 As of: 01/26/2014 08:08 PM CST 3 of 6

04/19/2001 04/19/2001 04/24/2001 05/14/2001 05/14/2001 05/17/2001 05/17/2001 05/18/2001
06/18/2001 06/26/2001 06/26/2001
07/17/2001 07/17/2001 08/06/2001
08/13/2001 08/13/2001

6 Application and ORDER for Raymond Yasser to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 4/20/01 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 04/20/2001)
7 Application and ORDER for Samuel J Schiller to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 4/20/01 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 04/20/2001)
8 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Midlothian ISD (issued−1) (jrb) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Molly Helmlinger 4/27/01 Answer due on 5/17/01 for Molly Helmlinger...original green card attached. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 05/15/2001)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Midlothian ISD 5/2/01 Answer due on 5/22/01 for Midlothian ISD...served Steve Griffin...original green card attached. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 05/15/2001)
11 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by defendant Midlothian ISD, defendant Molly Helmlinger(3) (jrb) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
12 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Midlothian ISD, defendant Molly Helmlinger (Attorney Nicole Woods Stammel, Don Bradley Kizzia), (9) (jrb) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
13 ORDER requiring attorney conference and status report...this conference shall take place no later than 6/4/01...within 14 days from the date of the conference, the parties shall submit a status report. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 5/21/01 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
14 Joint STATUS REPORT and Proposed Discovery Plan by plaintiff Sheila Beal, defendant Molly Helmlinger, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney (5) (jyg) (Entered: 06/19/2001)
15 ORDER referring case to ADR; ADR provider; Type of ADR: mediation Requested by: court..due by 10/29/01. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 6/27/01 Page(s): 2 (jrb) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
16 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Bench trial set for 4/1/02 ; Joining of Parties on 9/1/01 ; Amending of Pleadings on 9/1/01 ; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 1/2/02 ; Discovery cutoff 12/14/01 ; Pretrial materials due on 3/11/02 Pretrial conference for 10:00 3/28/02 ; Proposed pretrial order due 3/11/02 ; ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 6/27/01 Page(s): 9 (jrb) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
17 MOTION by plaintiff Sheila Beal, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney for class action certification . (3) (jaw) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
18 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Sheila Beal, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney in support of [17−1] motion for class action certification. (15+) (jaw) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
19 Unopposed MOTION by defendant Midlothian ISD, defendant Molly Helmlinger to extend time to file response brief, and subject thereto, dfts' preliminary brief in response to plaintiffs' mtn for class action certification (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
20 First Amended RESPONSE and Brief by defendant Molly Helmlinger, defendant Midlothian ISD to [17−1] motion for class action certification (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
21 ORDER granting [19−1] motion to extend time to file response brief, and subject thereto, dfts' preliminary brief in response to plaintiffs' mtn for class action certification Reply to Response to Motion reset to 8/13/01 for [17−1] motion for class action certification ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 8/14/01 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)

Case: 3:01-cv-746 As of: 01/26/2014 08:08 PM CST 4 of 6

08/22/2001 08/29/2001
09/10/2001 09/27/2001 10/01/2001 10/17/2001 10/18/2001 11/28/2001 11/30/2001
02/22/2002 02/26/2002
05/21/2002
08/08/2002 08/09/2002

22 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff Sheila Beal, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Charles V Emmett for extension of time to file reply brief to defendants' first amended response and brief in support or response opposing plaintiffs' motion for class action certification (3) (vdf) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
23 Agreed ORDER granting [22−1] motion for extension of time to file reply brief to defendants' first amended response and brief in support or response opposing plaintiffs' motion for class action certification Reply to Response to Motion reset to 9/27/01 for [17−1] motion for class action certification ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 8/29/01 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
24 NOTICE of ADDRESS CHANGE by plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Sheila Beal New address is: Samuel J Schiller Schiller Law Firm Suite 200 4113 Cumby Road Cookeville TN 38501. (3) (jrb) (Entered: 09/12/2001)
25 REPLY by plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Sheila Beal to response to [17−1] motion for class action certification (11) (jrb) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
26 Joint Settlement STATUS REPORT by defendant Molly Helmlinger, defendant Midlothian ISD, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Sheila Beal (2) (jrb) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
27 Agreed/JOINT MOTION for extension of mediation deadline by defendant Molly Helmlinger, defendant Midlothian ISD, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Sheila Beal (3) (jrb) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
28 ORDER granting [27−1] joint motion for extension of mediation deadline...deadline is extended until 11/30/01. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 10/19/01 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
29 Agreed/JOINT MOTION for extension of mediation and discovery deadlines by defendant Midlothian ISD, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Sheila Beal(4) (jrb) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
30 Amended Schedulng Order/ORDER granting [29−1] joint motion for extension of mediation and discovery deadlines reset scheduling order deadlines: Bench trial reset for 6/3/02 ; Discovery deadline on 2/1/02 Deadline for filing of dispositive motions by 3/4/02 Pretrial materials due 5/13/02 Proposed pretrial order due 5/13/02 Pretrial conference by 10:00 5/31/02 ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 12/3/01 Page(s) 9 (jrb) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
31 Unopposed MOTION by defendant Molly Helmlinger, defendant Midlothian ISD to extend scheduling deadlines (3) (jrb) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
32 Second Amended Scheduling ORDER granting [31−1] motion to extend scheduling deadlines reset scheduling order deadlines: Bench trial reset for 9/3/02 ; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions by 6/3/02 Discovery deadline on 5/3/02 Pretrial materials due 8/13/02 Proposed pretrial order due 8/13/02 Pretrial conference by 10:00 8/28/02 ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 2/26/02 Page(s) 8 (jrb) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
33 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part, denying in part [17−1] motion for class action certification and dismisses plaintiffs' effective accomodation claim for lack of standing...see order for specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 5/21/02 Page(s): 13 (jrb) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
34 Agreed MOTION by defendant Molly Helmlinger, defendant Midlothian ISD for extension of deadline regarding pretrial disclosures and pretrial materials (3) (jrb) (Entered: 08/09/2002)
35 Agreed ORDER regarding certain pretrial deadlines/ granting [34−1] motion for extension of deadline regarding pretrial disclosures and pretrial materials...the deadline for pretrial disclosures and objections and pretrial materials is extended to 5:00 pm on 8/16/02. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 8/9/02

Case: 3:01-cv-746 As of: 01/26/2014 08:08 PM CST 5 of 6

08/16/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 09/11/2002 09/11/2002
09/11/2002 09/17/2002 09/17/2002 10/17/2002 10/18/2002
11/20/2002 11/20/2002 12/24/2002 01/07/2003 01/16/2003 01/22/2003

Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 08/09/2002)
36 ORDER DIRECTING ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE...due by 9/16/02. ( signed by Judge Lindsay) Copies to counsel: 8/19/02 Page(s): 1 (jrb) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
37 JOINT MOTION for approval of settlement and consent decree by defendants and plaintiffs. (3) (jrb) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
38 Joint STIPULATION of dismissal...with prejudice. (4) (jrb) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
39 ORDER granting [37−1] joint motion for approval of settlement and consent decree...ordered that no notice to the class of class certification or settlement is required. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 9/12/02 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
40 ORDER of dismissal...any and all claims which were asserted or could have been asserted by any party against the other herein is hereby dismissed with prejudice with the specific exception of plaintiffs' or their attorneys' claim for attys' fees and costs related to this action, which will be the subject of a separate and subsequent order of this Court. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 9/12/02 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
41 CONSENT Decree...see order for specifics. ( signed by Judge Lindsady) Copies to counsel: 9/12/02 Page(s): 14 (jrb) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
42 JOINT MOTION to extend deadline for filing plaintiffs' mtn for attys' fees and costs by defendants and plaintiffs. (4) (jrb) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
43 ORDER granting [42−1] joint motion to extend deadline for filing plaintiffs' mtn for attys' fees and costs...extended for a period of 30 days, or until 10/25/02....see order for other specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 9/18/02 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
44 Second JOINT MOTION to extend deadline for filing plaintiffs' mtn for awarding of attys' fees and costs by defendant Does 1−50, defendant Molly Helmlinger, defendant Midlothian ISD, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Sheila Beal (5) (jrb) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
45 ORDER granting [44−1] joint motion to extend deadline for filing plaintiffs' mtn for awarding of attys' fees and costs...deadline for filing plaintiffs' mtn for awarding of attys' fees and costs is extended for a period 30 days or until 11/24/02...see order for other specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 10/18/02 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
46 Third Joint MOTION by defendant Molly Helmlinger, defendant Midlothian ISD, plaintiff Charles V Emmett, plaintiff Rick Maloney, plaintiff Lynn Maloney, plaintiff Sheila Beal to extend deadline for filing plaintiffs' mtn for awarding of attorneys' fees and costs (5) (jrb) (Entered: 11/21/2002)
47 ORDER granting [46−1] motion to extend deadline for filing plaintiffs' mtn for awarding of attorneys' fees and costs...due 12/24/02...see order for other specifics. Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 11/21/02 Page(s) 3 (jrb) Modified on 11/21/2002 (Entered: 11/21/2002)
48 Fourth JOINT MOTION to extend deadline for filing plaintiff's mtn for awarding of attys' fees and costs by defendants and plaintiffs. (8) (jrb) Modified on 01/08/2003 (Entered: 12/26/2002)
49 ORDER granting [48−1] joint motion to extend deadline for filing plaintiff's mtn for awarding of attys' fees and costs for a period of 30 days or until 1/24/03. See order for specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 1/8/03 Page(s) 3 (jrb) Modified on 01/08/2003 (Entered: 01/08/2003)
50 Joint STIPULATION of dismissal filed by plaintiffs and defendants. (3) (jrb) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
51 ORDER of Dismissal. Any and all claims which were asserted or could have been asserted by any party against the other herein are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Case: 3:01-cv-746 As of: 01/26/2014 08:08 PM CST 6 of 6
( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 1/23/03 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 01/23/2003)