In 2014, plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White, both transfer basketball players for Pepperdine University, complained about the way they were treated by their women’s basketball coach, Ryan Weisenberg, and other members of the athletic department. Videckis and White claimed that Weisenberg and other athletic department staff violated their privacy in an attempt to expose their sexual identity and discriminating against them. As a result, they filed a formal complaint with Pepperdine’s Title IX investigator. However, Videckis and White claimed they were retaliated against for asserting their rights, and Videckis claimed the school ultimately forced her off the team in September 2014. Videckis and White sued Pepperdine University and Weisenberg. Videckis and White claimed that the defendants’ actions constituted sexual orientation discrimination and harassment under Title IX, the California Education Code, and the Unruh Act. They also alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted an invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Weisenberg was ultimately removed as a defendant shortly after the case was filed. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that because of Pepperdine University’s religious mission, students who identify as gay, lesbian, transgender, or bisexual were not allowed visibility on campus and were not given equal treatment. Counsel also contended that gay students were discouraged from being open about their sexual identity and that on the women’s basketball team, Weisenberg was heard telling players that lesbian relationships between players were detrimental to a team’s success and forbidden. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Weisenberg set his sights on outing the closeted relationship between Videckis and White and that several times in 2014, Weisenberg asked their teammates, directly and indirectly, if they were dating. In addition, counsel argued that Weisenberg didn’t offer the women support to ensure their success on the team. Pepperdine’s defense counsel argued that there was no harassment, discrimination, or retaliation for any reason, let alone because of the plaintiffs’ sexual orientation. Counsel contended that Videckis and White never informed anyone that they thought they were being treated differently because of their sexual orientation until September 2014, when they filed a formal complaint with Pepperdine’s Title IX investigator. Following receipt of the complaint, a thorough investigation, which included interviewing 19 witnesses, was conducted. Counsel argued that when Videckis and White complained to Weisenberg about the athletic department staff’s alleged treatment of them, Weisenberg addressed their concerns to the best of his ability. Defense counsel contended that while there were some inquiries of other players about the plaintiffs’ dating relationship by members of the coaching staff, those inquiries were either in response to the players expressing concern about White and Videckis separating themselves from the team or, generally, to address team chemistry issues. Pepperdine’s defense counsel also introduced evidence that Weisenberg had no problem with gay women playing on his team and that Weisenberg was aware of other gay or bisexual players who had played for him for four years. In addition, evidence was introduced that Weisenberg had knowingly employed gay or bisexual assistant coaches. Thus, Pepperdine’s counsel argued that the atmosphere at Pepperdine was such that it was inclusive and supportive of its LGBTQ+ students, but that the plaintiffs stopped attending class and White quit the team before the plaintiffs filed their Title IX complaint., Videckis and White claimed that they suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incidents in 2014 and that they subsequently underwent limited counseling. They also claimed that after the events at Pepperdine escalated, they withdrew from Pepperdine and thereby forfeited their scholarships. Videckis and White eventually applied to the University of Southern California, where they currently attend school without the benefit of a full scholarship. Under the rules of theNational Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Videckis and White are no longer allowed to play Division I basketball without getting a waiver from the NCAA, which Videckis and White were advised is highly improbable to secure. Thus, Videckis and White sought recovery of emotional-distress damages and economic damages stemming from having to relinquish their scholarships when they were constructively forced off the team.