Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintifftrialsummary judgmentdiscriminationstatutory interpretation
lawsuitsummary judgmentdiscriminationstatutory interpretation

Related Cases

Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 639, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783, 23 Media L. Rep. 1920
View Case »
Miller v. California Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020, 20 A.D. Cases 1508, 37 NDLR P 162, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,335, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,366
View Case »
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 1642256, 2011-1 Trade Cases P 77,448
View Case »
Burden v. Wilkes-Barre Area School Dist., 16 F.Supp.2d 569, 129 Ed. Law Rep. 1036
View Case »
Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. United States, 179 F.Supp.3d 1238, 38 ITRD 1205
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shephard v. Loyola Marymount Univ., 102 Cal.App.4th 837, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 829, 89 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1856, 169 Ed. Law Rep. 624, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,143, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,545

Facts

Kisha Shephard, a member of the women's basketball team at Loyola Marymount University, filed a lawsuit against the university alleging race discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Authority Act (FEHA) after her athletic scholarship was not renewed. She claimed that the head coach, Julie Wilhoit, created a racially hostile environment and revoked her scholarship due to her race. The university argued that Shephard was a student and not an employee, thus barring her claim under the FEHA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the university.

Kisha Shephard, a member of the women's basketball team at Loyola Marymount University, filed a lawsuit against the university alleging race discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Authority Act (FEHA) after her athletic scholarship was not renewed.

Issue

Whether a student athlete receiving an athletic scholarship can be considered an employee under the Fair Employment and Housing Authority Act (FEHA) for the purposes of bringing a discrimination claim.

Whether a student athlete receiving an athletic scholarship can be considered an employee under the Fair Employment and Housing Authority Act (FEHA) for the purposes of bringing a discrimination claim.

Rule

Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an 'employee' is defined in a limited manner, and specifically excludes individuals who are not considered employees under California Labor Code section 3352, which states that student athletes receiving scholarships are not employees. Therefore, to recover under the FEHA, the plaintiff must be classified as an employee.

Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an 'employee' is defined in a limited manner, and specifically excludes individuals who are not considered employees under California Labor Code section 3352, which states that student athletes receiving scholarships are not employees.

Analysis

The court analyzed the definitions of 'employee' under the FEHA and Labor Code section 3352, concluding that Shephard, as a student athlete receiving a scholarship, did not meet the criteria for employee status. The court referenced previous cases and statutory interpretations that supported the exclusion of student athletes from being classified as employees. The court emphasized that allowing such a classification would lead to absurd results and contradict established legal definitions.

The court analyzed the definitions of 'employee' under the FEHA and Labor Code section 3352, concluding that Shephard, as a student athlete receiving a scholarship, did not meet the criteria for employee status. The court referenced previous cases and statutory interpretations that supported the exclusion of student athletes from being classified as employees.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Loyola Marymount University, concluding that Shephard was not an employee under the FEHA and therefore could not pursue her discrimination claim.

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Loyola Marymount University, concluding that Shephard was not an employee under the FEHA and therefore could not pursue her discrimination claim.

Who won?

Loyola Marymount University prevailed in this case because the court found that Kisha Shephard, as a student athlete, did not qualify as an employee under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The court's ruling was based on the interpretation of California law, which excludes student athletes from the definition of employees, thereby barring Shephard's claims of race discrimination.

Loyola Marymount University prevailed in this case because the court found that Kisha Shephard, as a student athlete, did not qualify as an employee under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

You must be