Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

More specifically, Humphreys is a former world-record holder in the 200-meter butterfly and

won the gold medal in that event in the 1972 Munich Olympics. Humphreys Decl., ¶¶ 3-4 In 1987, she

was named the NCAA Division I Swimming and Diving Coach of the Year for her performance as Head

Swimming and Diving Coach at UC Berkeley. Humphreys Decl., ¶ 17.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN MOE HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03808 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On April 14, 2006, the Court heard argument on defendants’ motion for summary judgment in

this case. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, and for good cause

appearing, the Court hereby DENIES the motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Karen Moe Humphreys is a decorated athlete and coach1

 who was formerly employed

as Assistant Athletic Director (“AAD”) for Student Services by the University of California, Berkeley

(“UC Berkeley”). After working for UC Berkeley for 26 years, plaintiff was laid off in February 2004

when her position was eliminated from the Athletic Department. Plaintiff filed this suit on September

9, 2004, seeking damages for what she alleges was an illegal layoff. Her fourth amended complaint

contains three general legal theories of liability: first, that her layoff was the product of gender

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 243 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants also claim that plaintiff has not adequately exhausted many of her claims because

she failed to exhaust state court remedies. The Court agrees with plaintiff, however, that she was not

required to exhaust any state court remedies to pursue the claims she has set forth in her complaint. 

2

discrimination; second, that she was laid off in retaliation for speaking out about gender issues in the

Athletic Department; and third, that she was laid off in retaliation for speaking out about the

department’s lack of compliance with NCAA regulations. Defendants now move for summary

judgment, claiming that plaintiff cannot support any of her claims.

Defendants’ brief raises a host of arguments against plaintiff’s claims of gender discrimination.2

The vast majority of these arguments, however, stem from defendants’ theory that plaintiff’s termination

was part of a legitimate reduction in force. While defendant may very well be able to establish this

theory of the case at trial, plaintiff has introduced adequate evidence to raise a genuine issue of material

fact as to whether her layoff was a product of illegal discrimination. For example, plaintiff has provided

a copy of an investigation conducted by UC Berkeley that found that the athletic department was a

hostile work environment for women and had “retaliatory issues” during the time period before plaintiff

was laid off. Plaintiff has also provided evidence that a position for which she was likely qualified was

filled shortly before her layoff, raising the inference that defendants did not want her to be able to

transfer into the position.

As to the retaliation allegations, plaintiff has provided evidence showing that her name was

placed on the layoff list shortly after she complained to UC Berkeley investigators that her superiors

were not treating women fairly. In addition, plaintiff has provided evidence showing that a position for

which she was likely qualified was filled almost immediately after she told her superiors about the

Athletic Department’s lack of compliance with NCAA regulations. The Court finds that this evidence

is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact with regard to plaintiff’s retaliation claims.

Accordingly, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist and therefore DENIES

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 243 Filed 04/17/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’

motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 105).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 243 Filed 04/17/06 Page 3 of 3