HBC Files Title IX Class Action on Behalf of Stephen F. Austin State University Female Athletes

Hutchinson Black and Cook is proud to represent female athletes at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) alongside Arthur Bryant of Arthur Bryant Law, P.C. and James L. Sowder and Ellen Platt of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP in a new federal class action lawsuit challenging the university’s decision to eliminate three women’s varsity sports teams.

The lawsuit alleges that SFA is in violation of Title IX by depriving women of equal athletic opportunities.

On May 22, 2025, SFA announced it would cut its women’s beach volleyball, bowling, and golf teams—along with the men’s golf team—at the end of the academic year. The cuts come despite SFA already falling far short of Title IX’s requirement that male and female students be provided athletic opportunities substantially proportionate to their enrollment.

“This is part of a troubling trend: schools slashing women’s sports in anticipation of making House v. NCAA revenue-sharing payments to football and men’s basketball players,” said Clune.

“To be clear: Revenue sharing payments are optional. Title IX compliance is not.”

According to data SFA submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, women made up over 63% of the undergraduate student body in 2022–23 but accounted for fewer than 47% of student-athletes. The elimination of the three women’s teams would widen that gap even further, reducing female athletic participation to just 42.6%. To achieve gender equity, SFA would need to add more than 200 women’s athletic opportunities—not take them away.

“At its heart, Title IX is an education law that recognizes the value that sports offer to students’ personal and professional growth. SFA’s decision to pay football players at the expense of the opportunity for female athletes to simply participate violates the very core of Title IX and underscores the importance of protecting Title IX as collegiate sports grow increasingly commercialized.” - Ashlyn Hare, associate attorney, HBC

Lead plaintiff Sophia Myers, a senior on the women’s beach volleyball team, said:

“It is truly sad and disappointing that we have to sue SFA to make it comply with Title IX, provide women with equal opportunities, and preserve our teams. But we have to stand up for our rights and fight for what is right.”

The plaintiffs have also filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction to preserve the women’s teams while the litigation proceeds.

This case builds on HBC’s longstanding commitment to equity in education and athletics. We’re proud to stand with these courageous athletes and advocate for their rights under Title IX.

Read more about the case in this Sportico article. Find the complaint and the emergency motion to learn more.

HBC Joins Amicus Brief in support of Susman Godfrey

HBC has again joined in the effort to defend the rule of law in our country and the rights of all clients and their law firms. 

On Friday, we and law firms from across the United States signed on to support Susman Godfrey LLP’s challenge to an unconstitutional Executive Order targeting that firm. 

Read the latest Susman Godfrey brief, and the earlier briefs filed on behalf of Perkins Coie, LLP, Jenner & Block, LLP, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP.

HBC Joins Amicus Briefs in support of Jenner & Block and Wilmer Hale

On April 11, 2025, Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC was again honored to join forces with law firms from across the United States, this time to support Jenner & Block LLP and Wilmer Hale Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP in challenges to recently-issued Executive Orders targeting those firms. 

With the filing of these briefs, another 300 law firms have added their names, bringing to over 800 the number of firms willing to publicly defend the rule of law in our country.  We will continue to work to preserve the independence of our judicial system, to ensure the freedom of all individuals and entities to choose their own counsel, and to protect the right of lawyers and law firms to represent those who may be unpopular or critical of the government without the risk of retribution.

Please find the full briefs below:

• Jenner & Block

• Wilmer Hale
  

HBC Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Perkins Coie’s Challenge to Executive Order

Today HBC is proud to stand with hundreds of leading law firms from across the country who joined an amicus brief in Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-00716. The brief supports Perkins Coie’s efforts to strike down an Executive Order that retaliated against the firm for working on matters adverse to the current President. 

“Like every lawyer, the members of the amicus law firms have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and to discharge the obligations of the profession to the best of our ability. That oath obligates all of us, no matter our political views, to be faithful custodians of our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law—a commitment that has made it possible for this Nation’s corporations to lead the world in innovation and productivity; for our scientists, scholars and creative artists to contribute so much to human progress; and for all of us to know that we can turn to the courts to vindicate our fundamental civil rights.”

Read the full brief.

Our decision was not about politics. It was about preserving our country’s independent judicial system, the right of individuals and companies to hire the counsel of their choice, and the right of law firms to represent clients on matters with which others may not agree.                                                                                            

For 134 years, our firm has fought vigorously for the interests of our clients.  Our continued ability to do so depends on the independence of our judicial system and the right of all lawyers to zealously advocate for their clients.  

Lydia Holzman Named Newest Partner at Hutchinson Black and Cook

We are pleased to announce that Lydia Holzman has been named partner at Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC. Lydia joined HBC in August 2023 and has become an integral part of the firm’s estate planning and corporate practice areas. She provides strategic legal counsel to her clients and is known for her practical legal advice, clear communication, and ability to simplify even the most complex legal issues for her clients.

Prior to joining HBC, Lydia worked as in-house counsel for 11 years and learned the value of providing practical legal advice and working hand-in-hand with her clients to navigate business transactions and decisions. Drawing on that experience, Lydia continues to work closely with her clients, whether a local business looking for outside counsel support or an individual working with her to handle their legal matters. Lydia and her family call Lyons, Colorado home and supporting the Boulder community and its businesses gives her great satisfaction in her practice.

Her leadership, expertise, and collaborative approach have made her a trusted advisor to her clients and colleagues alike. As HBC’s newest partner, Lydia will continue to strengthen our firm’s estate planning and business practice groups while continuing the firm’s commitment to providing high quality legal services.

We congratulate Lydia on this well-deserved promotion and look forward to her continued success at HBC.

Title IX Objection Challenges NCAA Settlement Over Stark Gender Pay Disparities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                         Media contact: John Clune
February 5, 2025                   john.clune@hbcboulder.com
                                                                                         303-441-7402

Female Athletes Likely To Receive Only $125 Per Year of Eligibility While Male Athletes Cash In

Boulder, Colo. – Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC (HBC) attorneys John Clune and Ashlyn Hare—alongside Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of Katz Banks Kumin LLP—have filed a formal Title IX-based objection to the House v. NCAA settlement, citing extreme gender disparities in financial compensation for college athletes.

The objection, filed on behalf of 10 former and current female student-athletes, exposes how the proposed settlement makes a critical error in calculating damages that vastly undercompensates women, likely awarding them just $125 per year of eligibility, while male athletes—particularly those in football and men’s basketball—stand to receive tens of thousands of dollars.

“This settlement isn’t just inequitable—it’s predicated on a flagrant violation of Title IX,” said John Clune, attorney at HBC. “This is primarily a settlement for football players that continues to keep female athletes in a one down position. One of our biggest concerns is that if this same inequitable model is used for revenue sharing in the future, women’s sports will be worse off than if there had never been a lawsuit in the first place. The schools and conferences should be embarrassed. They know better.“

Key Findings from the Financial Analysis of the Settlement

●      Unequal distribution of damages. The settlement primarily relies on the erroneous belief that schools, over the past 8 years, would have paid 90% of compensation to male athletes had the NCAA and conferences not restricted the right of athletes to earn money. As outlined in our objection, Title IX would have required any money coming from the school or conference to be paid proportionally between men and women based on the number of athletes at each institution. 

The settlement primarily allocates 90% of the $2.8 billion in past damages to male athletes in football and basketball, without ensuring that female athletes receive equitable financial benefits. As a result, most female athletes will likely take home a meager $125 USD per year of eligibility, while male athletes are taking home tens of thousands of dollars regardless of their marketability.

●      Title IX violations. While most objections filed to the House vs. NCAA settlement are in response to roster limits and a host of antitrust issues, there’s an overlooked component to the settlement that most objections have not raised: gender equity in past damages payment from the schools and conferences. Specifically, the proposed damages fail to acknowledge that Title IX applies to payments by the schools and conferences and requires proportionate distribution of financial aid and athletic benefits.

●      Threats to Olympic sports. The financial impact of the settlement may lead institutions to reallocate funds, potentially cutting or deprioritizing women’s and Olympic sports programs. Some schools have also stated they will implement the settlement’s future revenue-sharing model consistent with the inequitable distribution of past damages with 90% of revenue going to football and men’s basketball.

The filing comes amid ongoing legal and public scrutiny over the NCAA’s handling of athlete compensation, including name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and revenue-sharing agreements. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of college athletics and women in sports.

Our objection filed on behalf of 10 former and current student female athletes, is one of only a few objections on the basis of Title IX. One such athlete, Lexi Drumm, is a women’s soccer player for the College of Charleston.  

“This settlement provides an opportunity to rectify the past of collegiate sports and move into a new era where female athletes are given the resources to let their sports thrive,” said Drumm. “Just like interest, investment in collegiate sports compound. Male athletes are set to benefit exponentially more in the NCAA settlement because of the resources men’s sports have disproportionately been given. When you look at who this settlement is benefitting, it sends a strong and clear message that female athletes are not the priority—and that will negatively impact the future of women in sports for years to come.”

The Bigger Picture: Gender Equity at a Crossroads

This filing comes at a time when athlete compensation, NIL rights, and revenue-sharing models are reshaping the landscape of college sports. While future revenue sharing and roster limits dominate the conversation, this objection forces a reckoning with this fundamental error in the calculation of the $2.86 billion settlement.

“As a former college athlete, I know how essential Title IX has been to the development of women’s sport, and it’s critical that it doesn’t fall by the wayside as college sports are increasingly commercialized,” said Ashlyn Hare, associate attorney, HBC. “The NCAA, conferences, and schools have an obligation to their female athletes to recognize their value and invest in their future. That starts with recognizing Title IX in this settlement agreement.”

Read the full objection.

Lawsuit Against University of Colorado Over Free Speech and Due Process

On Monday, January 13, Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC filed a First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of two University of Colorado student-members of Students for Justice in Palestine concerning the University’s retaliation against the students for participating in a peaceful pro-Palestine protest on October 3, 2024. 

Find press coverage of this civil rights case here: 

• Denver Post 

• Colorado Public Radio

• Daily Camera

• Yellow Scene

• Boulder Weekly

• Yellow Scene

The Courage of Gisèle Pelicot

Photo by Amin Zabardast on Unsplash.

Authored by Kimberly M. Hult

Earlier today, a French court announced its verdicts following a lengthy rape trial of 51 men in Avignon, France.  Every one of the men was convicted, and many (but not all) face long prison terms.  For those of us who have followed the case closely for months, this outcome could never have been achieved without the courage, dignity and resilience of Gisèle Pelicot, the survivor of dozens, if not hundreds, of assaults.  For those unfamiliar with the case, over the course of a decade, Ms. Pelicot’s husband, one of the men convicted, had arranged for more than 50 (and maybe as many as 80) strangers to come into the couple’s home and rape Ms. Pelicot, a petite mother and grandmother, after he had first drugged her and she had become unconscious. 

Under French law, Ms. Pelicot had the right to remain anonymous through these proceedings.  She instead made the decision not only to proceed under her own name, but also to insist that all phases of the trial be public, including the viewing of horrific videos that her husband had made of the rapes and maintained in a file folder on his computer labeled “Abuse.”

Ms. Pelicot has insisted that she should not bear any shame for what happened to her; her assailants deserved the shame.  To be clear, her decision to proceed publicly, which has resulted in international media attention, could not have been easy.  Today, however, she told reporters that she has never regretted her decision. 

Ms. Pelicot has been rightfully hailed throughout France and beyond for her courage and poise and has ignited an important debate in that country about the definition of rape in the French criminal code and the need for affirmative consent to be part of that definition. 

She deserves every bit of the admiration and love that she has received.

Ever humble, this morning, Ms. Pelicot expressed her “profound gratitude” to her supporters, who have greeted and applauded her every morning and every evening outside of the courthouse.  For more than 20 years, I have worked with sexual assault survivors, and I have learned just how important true support is to them. 

But if I have also learned anything over the last couple of decades, it is that it is not easy to fight such an important battle so publicly.   To do so while recovering from sexual abuse requires an inner strength that is not available to many.  Gisèle Pelicot came forward publicly for all of those who simply could not. 

This holiday season she, and so many like her, have my deepest and most profound gratitude.

Marianne Luu-Chen Graduated from Inaugural Class of the Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel

Credit: Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute

We’re excited to announce that Marianne Luu-Chen, a partner at the law firm of Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC in Boulder, Colorado, has graduated from the inaugural class of the Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC).

The Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute was created by ACTEC Fellows to develop the profession’s future leaders in trust and estate law by invitation-only through a series of in-depth educational presentations led by outstanding subject matter experts in each field from across the U.S. For more information, visit www.rockymountainfellowsinstitute.org.

Marianne Luu-Chen provides counsel on estate planning, probate and trust administration, premarital and marital agreements, and estate, gift, and income tax planning for individuals and families.

Congratulations, Marianne! We’re honored to see your expertise recognized by the Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.

Insights and Observations from the Groundbreaking House v. NCAA Settlement Preliminary Approval Hearing

Photo by Jacob Rice on Unsplash

After nearly three hours of probing questions and answers from Judge Claudia Wilkins at yesterday’s preliminary approval hearing, several intriguing takeaways emerged:

1. Judge Wilkins and the Settlement: A Clear Preference for Resolution
   Judge Wilkins seems intent on steering clear of obstructing the settlement process. Despite at least two significant sticking points discussed below, she appears optimistic that these issues will be resolved by the parties themselves. Her encouragement for the parties to start drafting the settlement notice by the end of the hearing underscores her expectation for a resolution.

2. NIL Money and the Judge’s Sticking Point
   The right for athletes to continue receiving certain NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) money from collectives is the major sticking point for Judge Wilkins. While she’s not likely a cheerleader for collectives, she doesn’t see a strong reason to eliminate this potential income source for athletes. The parties argued that this provision doesn’t significantly alter the status quo, as the only prohibition in the settlement is against pure pay-for-play deals with no legitimate business interest (e.g., "come play football and we’ll give you five million dollars"), which are already banned by the NCAA. However, Judge Wilkins remained unconvinced. It seems this provision is a key point of negotiation for the NCAA, possibly to prevent any future court from allowing collectives unrestricted payment power. The NCAA appears ready to defend this point vehemently.

3. Binding Future Class Members: A Potential Hurdle
   Another potential snag is whether the court can bind future class members—such as current fifth graders who might become college athletes down the line—who aren’t represented in this case. Judge Wilkins seemed to suggest she’d feel more at ease if these prospective members were represented by separate counsel, though it’s unclear if this alone would address her concerns.

4. Title IX Concerns: A Quiet Issue
   Title IX doesn’t seem to be a major concern at this stage. Despite the likelihood of future litigation, neither the judge nor the predominantly male legal teams appear particularly worried about it right now, although Judge Wilken requested the parties clarify that the settlement does not release Title IX claims. An objection raised by Attorney Steve Molo, representing a group of female athletes and arguing that the settlement unfairly values women’s sports, seemed to have little impact on the court’s focus.

5. The NCAA’s Stance: A Firm Negotiator
   The NCAA doesn’t appear thrilled about this settlement or is simply willing to play hardball, threatening to walk away if their terms aren’t met. At any mention of possible changes to the negotiated provisions, NCAA counsel was clear that the removal of any provision could jeopardize the settlement. This stance could reflect the NCAA's general attitude or just the personality of their legal team. Either way, they’ve signaled a strong disinterest in altering settlement terms and would prefer to go to trial if necessary. Whether this is a strategic bluff remains to be seen.

The parties have three weeks to address these sticking points and submit a revised proposal for Judge Wilkins’s consideration. It’s likely they’ll find a resolution to the judge’s concerns, but the ultimate decision will rest with Judge Wilkins on whether the proposal meets her standards.

Building Awareness and Support of Survivors in the Face of Institutional Betrayal

Last week, after Harvey Weinstein’s conviction was overturned by the New York Court of Appeals, Ashley Judd, one of the first to come forward to reveal Mr. Weinstein’s abuse, called it an “institutional betrayal.”  While more will be written about the reasoning behind the New York court’s decision, the concept of institutional betrayal is very familiar to those of us who represent sexual assault survivors as they seek some measure of justice and accountability.

Hutchinson Black and Cook has been honored to represent sexual assault survivors for well over two decades.  During that time, while we, as a society, have made great progress in recognizing the seriousness of sexual violence, we have also come to realize that there is a lot of work that still needs to be done:  RAINN (the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) reports that every 68 seconds, another individual is sexually assaulted and nearly 435,000 individuals are sexually assaulted each year in the United States alone.  One out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. 

As we close out April, which is recognized as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we celebrate the progress that has been made and the work that still needs to be done to educate our communities and to support all survivors.  In doing so, we want to acknowledge how institutional betrayal continues to be something we focus on in our work to ensure that the institutions we look to for services, protection, and support do not instead add to the losses and trauma associated with sexual assault by overlooking or even betraying the interests of the survivors impacted by violence in their institutional community.

First, though, a bit of background:  Over the last 20 years, research into what we call “institutional betrayal” has expanded significantly.  The term was first introduced in 2007 by University of Oregon professor Dr. Jennifer J. Freyd, who defined institutional betrayal as “wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals committed within the context of the institution.” Institutional betrayal is an additional source of trauma that is related to but distinct from the underlying trauma of the sexual assault itself.  When our clients talk to us about an institutional betrayal that they have suffered, it is usually because there are inadequate (or nonexistent) school or employer policies to address sexual assault, there are alarming individual behaviors (often due to poor hiring decisions, training or supervision), or there is some combination of the two.  In our cases, we have seen instances where employers or schools have ignored warning signs (or even actual reports) of sexual violence and then further fail to support the survivors, prioritizing the needs of the institution or even, in some cases, the perpetrator.  Frequently, this leads to more sexual violence as perpetrators end up further emboldened to engage in additional sexual violence.  

There is no doubt that when an institution betrays a survivor, it is adding to the existing trauma from which the survivor has to recover.  Dr. Freyd and others have identified and begun to measure the specific impacts of that betrayal on the physical and psychological well-being of survivors of sexual violence in their studies.   Several studies show that after controlling for the general trauma associated with sexual violence, there is a clearly definable and measurable increase in stress and trauma associated with institutional betrayal.  This additional trauma is created when a seemingly trusted institution denies the sexual assault survivor’s experience, creates an unwelcoming environment where the survivor does not feel safe to stay at the institution, or even retaliates against a survivor for reporting the sexual violence.   It can lead survivors to feel as if they are not safe to seek out the assistance that they need, which in turn may cause an institution to claim that it is the survivor’s fault for not seeking that assistance.

In our work for survivors, we seek to distinguish the effects of institutional betrayal from the trauma of the assault.  We work with our clients to collect evidence that supports their claims that the institution betrayed them.  We collect the institution’s policies and look to whether they are adequate and enforced given the known risks in that community.  We examine the training (if any) that a particular employer or school provided.  Finally, we work with experienced experts who know how to identify the nature and impact of institutional betrayal, along with things like future short- and long-term treatment options that might help a survivor recover.  

The goal of our work is not simply to develop our clients’ cases.  It is to acknowledge and redress the systemic role of institutions in sexual violence that has long been too common and to try to ensure that next time, our trusted institutions will do better.  And knowing that they too are working to address these issues, to change our community’s institutions, and – hopefully – to protect others, is something that can bring hope and peace to our clients.