If the names Haley Videckis and Layana White seem familiar, it would be because the two former Pepperdine women’s basketball players filed a 2014 civil rights action suit alleging discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The jury ruled unanimously against plaintiffs Videckis and White in favor of Pepperdine University on Friday, Aug. 11.
Teammates Videckis and White alleged their romantic relationship caused members of the Pepperdine athletics department to harass them. This eventually forced them off the team and resulted in the subsequent loss of their athletic scholarships.
Many of the legal questions in the case hinged on Title IX regulations which, in a 2015 decision, a judge said also covered issues of LGBT discrimination. For that reason, the case has been considered a victory by some, who can now leverage Title IX for cases involving sexual orientation discrimination in an educational setting.
The suit involved many conflicting facts from the plaintiffs and Pepperdine University. Videckis, a 20-year-old at the time, was a transfer student from Arizona State University recruited by Pepperdine University women’s basketball. Similarly, 21-year-old White was a transfer from the University of Arizona, recruited for her talents by the university. Both attended with scholarships.
While unclear as to when the relationship started, Videckis and White were dating by 2014. Due to what they described as Pepperdine’s “ambivalent” stance on lesbian relationships (as a Christian university), the women hid the relationship.
Ryan Weisenberg, the head coach of the women’s basketball team at the time, was a key figure in the suit. Weisenberg (known as “Coach Ryan”), other coaching staff and academic support coordinator Adi Conlogue tried to discern the nature of the players’ relationships. According to plaintiffs’ attorneys, Weisenberg held a leadership meeting in April 2014 with selected team members, including the plaintiffs, where he was quoted saying: “Lesbianism is not tolerated on this team. It is the reason why teams lose.”
The situation escalated from there, as The Malibu Times reported in 2014.
In the original complaint that was filed, plaintiffs alleged that despite pleas for help, the university did not respond. This included speaking (or at least attempting to speak) to Weisenberg, other coaching staff and even the president of the university regarding the alleged harassment. Court documents show that Tabatha Jones Jolivet, the deputy Title IX coordinator at Pepperdine University, investigated the situation but allegedly found no evidence of sexual harassment or discrimination.
Both Videckis and White gave up their scholarships. They have since transferred to the University of Southern California.
Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law prohibiting sex and gender discrimination in any educational program receiving federal funding. Pepperdine University was originally exempt from the law, allowing the school to take disciplinary action as it saw fit according to its religious beliefs. Pepperdine University receives funding from the California and federal governments.
While the jury’s decision ultimately favors the university, the fact remains that Haley Videckis et al v. Pepperdine University is a landmark case. Federal Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied the university’s motion to dismiss the case in 2015.
He insisted sexual discrimination was relevant under Title IX, something which had never been done before. The move pushed the case from state to federal court.
“…sexual discrimination is not a category distinct from sex or gender discrimination,” Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote. “…Simply put, the line between sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination is ‘difficult to draw’ because that line does not exist, save as a lingering and faulty judicial conduct.”
In Jan. 2016, soon after that decision was made, Andrew K. Benton, Pepperdine University’s president, submitted a letter to the Office of Civil Rights requesting a withdrawal of its original Title IX exemption, as first reported by the Huffington Post. With this action, the university withdrew its power to discriminate against LGBT students.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs’ case was well underway. In total, the two leveled seven allegations against the university, including: violation of their right to privacy; violation of a California education code that prohibited discrimination at a state-funded postsecondary institution (similar to Title IX); deliberate indifference to harassment, systemic intentional discrimination and retaliation for complaints about discrimination under Title IX; violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prevents business entities (in this case, Pepperdine University) from discriminating against those in California’s jurisdiction; and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The last charge was of importance earlier this year when Pepperdine University won its motion to compel mental examinations of the plaintiffs.
After the examinations and pretrial motions, the case moved to trial early July. A number of witnesses were called to the stand including the plaintiffs, Weisenberg, Conlogue and Benton among others to testify in front of a jury.
Jury began deliberations early Friday and came up with a unanimous decision by evening.
In an emailed statement from Aug. 15 (one similar to those given to multiple publications over the past two years), Pepperdine University responded:
“The trial verdict reinforces the University’s findings following a comprehensive investigation more than two years ago, which yielded no evidence to support the plaintiffs’ allegations. We are pleased that the jury unanimously reached the same conclusion, affirming that the University and its employees acted in best interests of all involved.
As an institution of higher learning, Pepperdine seeks to ensure that all students have the opportunity to thrive in an environment that allows them to reach their full potential. Moving forward, we will continue to engage the University community in ways that promote open, honest, and meaningful dialogue. We remain committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive campus where students are strengthened for lives of purpose, service, and leadership.”
Neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys responded to requests for comment by the time The Malibu Times went to print.