
Wolves rally from 19 down to win wild Game 2
Timberwolves come back from 19 down to win Game 2 vs. Nuggets!

A federal judge has approved a $300,000 settlement for former female athletes at San Diego State, who accused the school of violating Title IX. This landmark case marks the first time a school will pay damages for depriving women athletes of equal financial aid.
Mentioned in this story
SAN DIEGO â A federal judge has approved a landmark settlement that will pay former female athletes at San Diego State a combined $300,000 in damages after they sued the school and accused it of violating Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sexual discrimination in the workplace.
U.S. District Judge Todd Robinson delivered the order April 20, approving settlement terms that were reached last year, including $1.3 million to be paid by SDSU to the plaintiffsâ attorneys who brought this class-action suit on behalf of the women.
The $300,000 is to be split among a class of 798 former athletes at SDSU, which might not seem like much. But this outcome marks something bigger, plaintiffs attorney Arthur Bryant said.
âThese women have made history,â Bryant told USA TODAY Sports on April 20. âThis is the first case ever in which a school is going to pay damages to women athletes for depriving them of equal athletic financial aid. It is definitely not going to be the last. And SDSU is going to comply with Title IX.â
Now that the settlement has been approved, SDSU must pay the amounts within 30 days, according to the judgeâs order.
2026: UCLA Bruins
2025: Connecticut Huskies
2024: South Carolina Gamecocks
The settlement is significant as it marks the first time a school has paid damages specifically for depriving female athletes of equal financial aid under Title IX.
The $300,000 settlement will be divided among 798 former athletes, resulting in a small amount for each individual.
The settlement includes $300,000 in damages for the athletes and $1.3 million to be paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys.
San Diego State must pay the settlement amounts within 30 days of the judge's order.

Timberwolves come back from 19 down to win Game 2 vs. Nuggets!
Sophie Cunningham Clears Up Contract Drama: It's About Pets, Not Money
Liam Rosenior's Future at Chelsea in Question Without UCL

Thunder take 1-0 lead into Game 2 against Suns

Orlando Magic visit Detroit Pistons with a 1-0 series lead
Real Madrid sets two key criteria for selecting their next manager.
See every story in Sports â including breaking news and analysis.
2023: LSU Lady Tigers
2022: South Carolina Gamecocks
2021: Stanford Cardinal
2019: Baylor Lady Bears
2018: Notre Dame Fighting Irish
2017: South Carolina Gamecocks
2016: Connecticut Huskies
2015: Connecticut Huskies
2014: Connecticut Huskies
2013: Connecticut Huskies
2012: Baylor Bears
2011: Texas A&M Aggies
2010: Connecticut Huskies
2009: Connecticut Huskies
2008: Tennessee Lady Volunteers
2007: Tennessee Lady Volunteers
2006: Maryland Terrapins
2005: Baylor Lady Bears
2004: Connecticut Huskies
2003: Connecticut Huskies
2002: Connecticut Huskies
2001: Notre Dame Fighting Irish
2000: Connecticut Huskies
1 / 26
2026: UCLA Bruins
1 / 26
2026: UCLA Bruins
2 / 26
2025: Connecticut Huskies
3 / 26
2024: South Carolina Gamecocks
4 / 26
2023: LSU Lady Tigers
5 / 26
2022: South Carolina Gamecocks
6 / 26
2021: Stanford Cardinal
7 / 26
2019: Baylor Lady Bears
8 / 26
2018: Notre Dame Fighting Irish
9 / 26
2017: South Carolina Gamecocks
10 / 26
2016: Connecticut Huskies
11 / 26
2015: Connecticut Huskies
12 / 26
2014: Connecticut Huskies
13 / 26
2013: Connecticut Huskies
14 / 26
2012: Baylor Bears
15 / 26
2011: Texas A&M Aggies
16 / 26
2010: Connecticut Huskies
17 / 26
2009: Connecticut Huskies
18 / 26
2008: Tennessee Lady Volunteers
19 / 26
2007: Tennessee Lady Volunteers
20 / 26
2006: Maryland Terrapins
21 / 26
2005: Baylor Lady Bears
22 / 26
2004: Connecticut Huskies
23 / 26
2003: Connecticut Huskies
24 / 26
2002: Connecticut Huskies
25 / 26
2001: Notre Dame Fighting Irish
26 / 26
2000: Connecticut Huskies
The lawsuit, filed in 2022, accused the university of depriving female athletes of equal scholarship money compared to male athletes. SDSU denied it discriminated against female athletes and fought the case for more than three years until agreeing to the settlement.
âSDSU intentionally chose not to fund womenâs sports for the full amount of aid permitted by the NCAAâs rules,â the plaintiffsâ complaint against SDSU stated. âIt likewise intentionally chose not to permit the coaches of womenâs teams to award the full amount of aid permitted by the NCAAâs rules. Those decisions harmed all Plaintiffs. The same dollar limits were not placed on many of SDSUâs menâs teams, including, for example, the menâs football team.â
The $300,000 in damages is owed to 798 female varsity athletes at SDSU from the 2018-2019 through 2024-25 academic years. Under terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs also won benefits for female athletes at the university, including a promise to replace the turf for the womenâs lacrosse team and to provide "professional photography services and publicity equitably to menâs and womenâs teams."
Previous Title IX lawsuits often have sought injunctive relief from the courts â a remedy that forces a school to stop doing something or to take action, such as reinstating women's sports teams. Â But monetary damages for athletes in such cases is a new frontier, as the parties acknowledged in their joint motion to approve the settlement.
âIt is important to acknowledge that no court has awarded damages for violation of Title IX as to athletic financial aid,â the parties stated in support of their joint motion for approval of the settlement. âThe risks and uncertainties that accompany serving as the initial volley of this type of claim were certainly within Plaintiffsâ consideration in the settlement.â
San Diego State noted in the final settlement that the "damages" it agreed to pay are "non-precedential," meaning they will not be a precedent to be followed in future cases.
Plaintiffs in the case included athletes from SDSUâs women's rowing team, which the school decided to eliminate after the 2020-21 season. The reason SDSU gave for eliminating that womenâs sport back then was that SDSU had too many female athletes compared to the universityâs overall undergraduate enrollment, as reported in then in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Five years later, many of those athletes will get some measure of payback within the next 30 days after Robinson's order on April 20.
Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@usatoday.com
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Judge approves landmark Title IX settlement for San Diego State women