Introduction

Blair v. Washington State University, decided on August 6, 1987, by the Supreme Court of Washington, represents a pivotal case in the domain of gender equity within collegiate athletics. The plaintiffs, female athletes and their coaches, alleged that Washington State University (WSU) engaged in systemic sex discrimination, particularly in the allocation of resources and opportunities between male and female athletic programs. This case not only scrutinized the distribution of funds and scholarships but also addressed the intricacies surrounding attorney fees in discrimination litigation.

The primary issues on appeal included the exclusion of football from sex equity calculations, the treatment of sports-generated revenues, the reduction of attorney fees based on public interest representation, and the procedural requirement for filing a tort claim with the state prior to initiating a discrimination lawsuit.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington, in an en banc decision, affirmed parts of the trial court's judgment while reversing others. Key findings include:

• Football Exclusion: The trial court's exclusion of the football program from sex equity calculations was deemed an abuse of discretion and was reversed.
• Sports-Generated Revenue: The exclusion of sports-generated revenues from university financial support allocations was upheld.
• Attorney Fees: The trial court's reduction of attorney fees due to the plaintiffs' representation by a nonprofit legal organization was reversed, aligning with federal standards.
• Tort Claim Requirement: The necessity for plaintiffs to file a tort claim with the state before proceeding with a discrimination action was affirmed.

Additionally, the court enforced the trial court's injunction mandating increased financial support and participation opportunities for female athletes, ensuring the dismantling of discriminatory practices within WSU's athletic programs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced both state and federal precedents to solidify its rulings. Notable among them are:

• MARCHIORO v. CHANEY, 90 Wn.2d 298 (1978): Affirmed the absolute mandate of equality under the Equal Rights Amendment.
• Fahn v. Cowlitz Cy., 95 Wn.2d 679 (1981): Established that representation by public interest groups does not justify reducing attorney fee awards in discrimination cases.
• BLUM v. STENSON, 465 U.S. 886 (1984): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that reasonable attorney fees in federal civil rights actions should be based on prevailing market rates, irrespective of the attorney's nonprofit status.
• HENSLEY v. ECKERHART, 461 U.S. 424 (1983): Clarified that in civil rights actions, a party prevails if it succeeds on any significant issue, influencing the extent of attorney fee awards.
• ANDERSEN v. GOLD SEAL VINEYARDS, Inc., 81 Wn.2d 863 (1973): Defined the prevailing party in Washington as the one who receives judgment in their favor.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was multifaceted, addressing each appeal issue with thorough analysis:

1. Inclusion of Football in Sex Equity Calculations

The trial court had excluded WSU's football program from sex equity assessments, citing its unique revenue-generating capacity and operational distinctions. However, the Supreme Court of Washington found this exclusion incompatible with the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the Law Against Discrimination. The ERA's unequivocal mandate for equality under the law disallows any sport from being exempted based on its revenue-generating nature. Excluding football perpetuates systemic inequality, undermining the very essence of the ERA.

2. Allocation of Sports-Generated Revenue

While the exclusion of football from equity considerations was overturned, the court upheld the trial court's decision to allow each sport to benefit from its generated revenues. This distinction was supported by legislative interpretations, particularly RCW 28B.10.704, which permits such allocation. The court emphasized that this approach incentivizes all sports programs to develop their own revenue streams, thereby promoting financial independence and equality across all athletic departments.

3. Attorney Fee Awards in Public Interest Representation

The reduction of attorney fees based on the plaintiffs' association with a nonprofit legal services organization was overruled. Drawing parallels with federal rulings, the court held that nonprofit status does not justify a diminution of reasonable attorney fees. Aligning with BLUM v. STENSON, the court emphasized that fees should reflect prevailing market rates, ensuring that attorneys are fairly compensated irrespective of the nature of their representation.

4. Procedural Requirement of Filing a Tort Claim

The court affirmed the necessity for plaintiffs to file a tort claim under RCW 4.92.110 before initiating a discrimination lawsuit. This procedural prerequisite ensures that the state is duly notified of tortious conduct, aligning with broader statutory frameworks that govern state immunity and liability.

Impact

The Blair v. Washington State University decision has far-reaching implications for both collegiate athletics and civil rights litigation:

• Sex Equity in Athletics: Universities must now include all sports, regardless of their revenue-generating capabilities, in sex equity assessments. This ensures a holistic approach to gender equality, preventing the marginalization of women's athletic programs.
• Financial Allocation: By upholding the exclusion of sports-generated revenues, the court promotes financial autonomy within sports programs, encouraging each to cultivate their revenue streams without compromising equity mandates.
• Attorney Fee Standards: The reversal concerning attorney fee reductions sets a clear precedent that nonprofit representation in discrimination cases should not adversely affect fee awards, ensuring that plaintiffs have access to quality legal representation without financial penalties.
• Procedural Compliance: The affirmation of the tort claim requirement underscores the importance of adhering to procedural prerequisites, reinforcing the structured approach to state liability in discrimination cases.

Collectively, these outcomes reinforce the commitment to gender equity in collegiate athletics and fortify the protections afforded to plaintiffs in discrimination actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief refers to a court-ordered mandate requiring a party to do or refrain from specific acts. In this case, the injunction mandated WSU to adjust its funding and resource allocation to achieve sex equity in its athletic programs.

2. Tort Claims Act (RCW 4.92.110)

The Tort Claims Act governs claims against the state for damages arising from tortious conduct. Under RCW 4.92.110, plaintiffs must file a claim with the state before initiating a lawsuit, serving as a prerequisite to pursuing legal action.

3. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

The Equal Rights Amendment is a constitutional amendment aimed at eliminating sex-based discrimination by guaranteeing equal legal rights regardless of sex. In this judgment, the ERA was pivotal in determining that no sport could be exempted from equitable considerations based on its revenue-generating status.

4. Legal Precedents

Legal precedents are prior court decisions that establish legal principles or rules. Courts reference these precedents to guide their rulings in current cases, ensuring consistency and adherence to established legal standards.

Conclusion

The Blair v. Washington State University case serves as a cornerstone in the pursuit of gender equity within collegiate athletics. By mandating the inclusion of all sports in sex equity calculations and upholding comprehensive standards for attorney fee awards in discrimination cases, the Supreme Court of Washington reinforced the foundational principles of the Equal Rights Amendment and the Law Against Discrimination.

This judgment not only rectified specific instances of discrimination at WSU but also set a robust framework for future cases, ensuring that institutions uphold equal treatment across all facets of their athletic programs. Furthermore, by aligning state law with federal standards regarding attorney fees, the court safeguarded the rights of plaintiffs to secure fair legal representation, irrespective of their association with nonprofit legal entities.

Ultimately, this decision underscores the judiciary's role in advancing social justice and equity, ensuring that discriminatory practices are dismantled and that all individuals have equal opportunities to participate and excel in collegiate athletics.