Leveling the Playing Field: What the SDSU Title IX Settlement Signals for California Higher Ed

05.05.2026

A recent federal court decision approving a Title IX class action settlement against San Diego State University (SDSU) delivers a message to colleges and universities across California: equity in athletics is not only a policy goal, but also a legal obligation subject to scrutiny and legal enforcement.

In Fisk et al. v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-173 (S.D. Cal.), female varsity student-athletes alleged that SDSU engaged in intentional and systemic sex-based discrimination in violation of Title IX. The plaintiffs, representing both past and current athletes, challenged disparities in athletic financial aid, inequities in treatment and benefits, and alleged retaliation against those who raised concerns or participated in the lawsuit. Without proceeding to trial, the court granted final approval of a negotiated settlement that combines modest monetary relief with institutional reforms.

The settlement divides affected athletes into two classes. The first class (“Class 1”) includes all current and recent female varsity athletes and is primarily forward-looking, focusing on injunctive relief. The second class (“Class 2”) consists of athletes who participated between the 2018–2019 and 2024–2025 academic years and allegedly did not receive the full measure of athletic financial aid available to them. Only this latter group is eligible for monetary compensation for damages. SDSU agreed to pay $300,000 to be divided among all 792 members of Class 2, with individual payments ranging roughly from $172 to $860 depending on each athlete’s years of participation. Notably, the distribution process is automatic and requires no claim submissions.

While the financial component is limited, the settlement’s impacts are twofold: (1) its precedent of establishing damages for a violation of Title IX as to athletic financial aid and (2) structural requirements.  The court found monetary relief adequate, noting that financial aid damages forecasted were speculative and that “no court has awarded damages for violation of Title IX as to athletic financial aid.”  As to structural impact, SDSU must retain an independent third party to conduct a comprehensive Gender Equity Review of its athletic programs using federal Title IX guidance. Based on that review, the university is required to implement a Gender Equity Plan designed to bring its athletic department into compliance by the 2026–2027 academic year. The agreement further mandates ongoing monitoring, including annual public reports through July 2028.

The required reforms reach into the day-to-day operations of collegiate athletics. SDSU has committed to providing equitable access to nutrition resources for male and female student-athletes, comparable travel accommodations (including flights and lodging), facility upgrades (including track facility and field repairs for women’s teams), balanced media and publicity (including providing professional photography), and equitable dedicated staff resources for streaming.

The court also approved a $1.3 million award for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. Applying a higher level of review to account for the provision of attorneys’ fees relative to class damages, the court applied the customary lodestar accounting method and found the request reasonable, emphasizing that the amount represented less than half of counsel’s calculated lodestar. The court noted the complexity of the litigation, the risks undertaken by counsel, and the meaningful, if not easily quantifiable, benefits achieved through injunctive relief.

In granting final approval of the settlement, the court highlighted several factors that are particularly instructive for higher education institutions. First, it emphasized the availability of damages in Title IX athletic financial aid cases.  Courts have not clearly defined how such damages should be calculated and the court emphasized that prevailing plaintiffs cannot recover emotional distress or punitive damages. The court also noted that damages for unequal treatment were not asserted by the plaintiffs here and therefore were not considered as a part of the damage calculation. The court concluded that the settlement’s monetary relief, though limited, was reasonable in light of the risks and delays inherent in continued litigation.

This case reflects a broader enforcement trend in which Title IX compliance is evaluated not only through formal policies but through measurable outcomes across athletic programs. Financial aid allocation is likely to remain a focal point, but institutions can also consider evaluating the totality of benefits provided to student-athletes, including travel, facilities, staffing, and visibility.

The settlement’s emphasis on independent review, public reporting, and sustained oversight illustrates how institutions may be required to demonstrate compliance over time—not simply assert it.  In this environment, informal or ad hoc approaches to equity are increasingly scrutinized.

If you have questions about navigating Title IX compliance, assessing athletic program equity, or responding to emerging risks in this area, please contact the authors of this alert or your regular AALRR counsel.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2026 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo