Federal Court Orders Stephen F. Austin University to Reinstate and Preserve All Women’s Teams While Female Athletes’ Title IX Sex Discrimination Class Action Proceeds
Women’s Beach Volleyball, Bowling, and Golf Reinstated; Female Athletes Seeking Equal Opportunities to Participate in Varsity Sports
Contacts:
Arthur Bryant, 510-507-9972, arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com
John Clune, 970-390-5480, john.clune@hbcboulder.com
United States District Judge Michael Truncale of Lufkin, Texas, issued a 17-page Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction late Friday requiring Stephen F. Austin University (“SFA”) to “preserve the women’s beach volleyball team, women’s bowling team, women’s golf team, and all other women’s varsity teams at the University while this case is pending.” The order was a complete and sweeping victory on the motion for the women athletes.
“This decision shows that women have to stand up for their rights and fight sex discrimination in sports,” said plaintiff and SFA beach volleyball player Ryann Allison. “Women across the country should not take no for an answer. If you think something is wrong, stand up for your rights. Don’t just sit back. Fight for your rights as a female athlete, a woman, and a human being.”
SFA female athletes Sophia Myers, Elaina Amador, Berklee Andrews, Meagan Ledbetter, and Kara Kay are also plaintiffs in the case.
“This is a huge victory for the women athletes at SFA, female athletes nationwide, and everyone who cares about gender equity and the rule of law,” said Arthur Bryant of Arthur Bryant Law, P.C., in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. “SFA made an intentional, considered business decision to eliminate women’s teams when its own Title IX consultant had already told SFA it was violating the law and needed to add women’s teams. That’s sex discrimination, plain and simple.”
John Clune and Ashlyn Hare of Hutchinson Black and Cook in Boulder, CO, and James L. Sowder and Ellen Platt of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP, in Dallas, TX, are co-counsel for the women athletes.
On May 22, 2025, SFA announced it was eliminating the three women’s teams (and its men’s golf team) at the end of the academic year. Title IX prohibits educational institutions receiving federal funds from eliminating women’s teams for which interest, ability, and competition are available unless “intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.” After SFA refused to reinstate the teams, the female athletes filed a sex discrimination class action against the school on June 30, 2025, for depriving women of equal opportunities to participate in varsity sports in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, along with an Emergency Motion seeking the teams’ reinstatement. After a two-day hearing on July 30-31, the Court granted the women the relief they were seeking.
The Court’s Order noted:
Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Donna Lopiano determined that women currently make up 63% of SFA’s undergraduate population and receive only 45.6% of the athletic opportunities. According to Dr. Lopiano’s calculations, SFA needs to add 223 varsity intercollegiate athletic opportunities for women to achieve proportionality. Furthermore, “if the beach volleyball, bowling, and men’s and women’s golf teams are eliminated and the other facts stay the same, the female athlete participation gap will increase to 245.” In fact, SFA’s own 2024 Title IX Summary report prepared by Helen Grant in January 2025 stated: “SFA is not providing male and female athletics participation rates in substantial proportionality to the male and female undergraduate enrollment rates.”
Grant’s January 2025 report recommended SFA preserve all women’s teams and add two more to comply with Title IX. SFA cut three women’s teams instead, offering its financial condition as a defense. Judge Truncale rejected that justification, stating, “the Court finds that the financial burden self-imposed by SFA does not outweigh the harm suffered by Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfied their burden for issuance of a preliminary injunction.”
Judge Truncale also rejected SFA’s request that, instead of reinstating the women’s teams, the Court should allow it to develop a plan to comply with Title IX. The Order says:
SFA asks the Court that, in the event it finds injunctive relief is warranted, it should afford SFA an opportunity to create a plan to demonstrate compliance. The Court declines to provide SFA with this opportunity, especially considering it had the chance to become compliant with Title IX in January when it received the report indicating it was not in compliance with the statute. Instead of seeking compliance, it cut three women’s programs. This does not demonstrate any desire to be compliant. Therefore, injunctive relief is proper.
SFA has announced that it intends to appeal the decision. In the meantime, it must reinstate the women’s teams, is barred from eliminating any other women’s teams, and the case will proceed.
# # #
Release Files
View the ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
View the FILED LAWSUIT
View the EMERGENCY MOTION