June 13, 2007

Click here to view the Consolidated Settlement Notice in PDF format

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING

ATTENTION: ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE FEMALE STUDENTS OF SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY WHO PARTICIPATE, SEEK TO PARTICIPATE, OR HAVE BEEN DETERRED OR PREVENTED FROM PARTICIPATING IN SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT ADDRESSES A LAWSUIT THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement in a pending class action lawsuit brought against Slippery Rock University ("SRU") on behalf of all present and future female students of SRU (including currently enrolled female students, female students admitted for the 2006-07 academic year, and prospective female students) who participate, seek to participate, or have been deterred or prevented from participating in, or obtaining the benefits of, intercollegiate athletics at SRU. A class-action settlement, which must be approved by the Court, was reached in this pending class action, which is captioned or otherwise referred to as Choike, et al. v. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-00622-DWA, and which is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Litigation"¨).

The plaintiff class in the Litigation alleges that SRU violated, and is continuing to violate, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-88 ("Title IX") by: (1) failing to provide equitable athletic opportunities for its female students (the "Participation Claims"); and (2) failing to provide equitable treatment to its female student athletes (the "Treatment Claims").

The proposed settlement (the "Settlement"¨) resolves the Participation Claims and the Treatment Claims.

Through the Participation Claims, the plaintiff class sought to prevent SRU from eliminating any women's varsity athletic teams (including, particularly, the women's swimming, water polo, and field hockey teams, which SRU had announced publicly that it intended to eliminate) and bar SRU from cutting any other women's varsity programs unless and until SRU had achieved compliance with particular requirements of Title IX. SRU has denied and continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing. SRU argues in its defense of the Litigation that it has complied with the relevant requirements of Title IX.

Through the Treatment Claims, the plaintiff class sought to ensure that SRU provided equal treatment to its athletic teams regardless of gender, with respect to Equipment and supplies; Scheduling of games and practice time; Travel and per diem allowances; Tutoring; Coaching; Locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; Medical and training facilities and services; Housing and dining facilities and services; Publicity; Support services; and Recruitment of student athletes.

The parties to the Litigation have now entered into a proposed agreement to settle the Participation Claims and the Treatment Claims of the Litigation (the "Agreement").

THIS NOTICE SUMMARIZES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND ADVISES YOU OF:
The status of the Litigation and the opportunity to file with the Court an objection to the Settlement and to appear at the Fairness Hearing addressing the approval of the Settlement.

II. DEFINITIONS OF THE CLASS
The plaintiff class, which was certified by the Court on April 9, 2007, is defined as:

All present and future female students of SRU, including currently enrolled female students, female students admitted for the 2006-07 academic year, and prospective female students who participate, seek to participate, or have been deterred or prevented from participating in or obtaining the benefits of intercollegiate athletics sponsored by SRU (the "Class").

The Court has appointed plaintiffs Elizabeth Laura Choike, Ashley Guinivere Stoner, Heather Walbright, Jessica Student, Jennifer Venet, Elizabeth Penning, Laura A. Sanford, Emily C. Campbell, Rebecca Zinn, Alison Nicole Nuckols, Sarah S. Sander, and Racheal Bienias as representatives of the Class.

III. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT
After hard-fought litigation and extensive negotiations, which were supervised by a magistrate judge of the Court, Class Counsel (Terry L. Fromson, Esq. and Susan Frietsche, Esq. of the Women's Law Project and Abbe F. Fletman, Esq. and Lizanne V. Hackett, Esq. of the law firm of Flaster/Greenberg P.C.) have concluded that the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel have analyzed the benefits of the Settlement, the possible outcome of further litigation, and the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Participation Claims and the Treatment Claims through trial and possible appeals.

By entering into the Settlement Agreement, SRU does not admit any fault or wrongdoing. SRU denies any and all liability to the Class and the representatives of the Class and denies that it has violated Title IX. The Court entered a preliminary injunction against SRU requiring it to reinstate the women's water polo and swimming teams, but no trial on the merits has occurred. (SRU voluntarily agreed to reinstate the women's field hockey team.)

IV. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
As a benefit to the Class, SRU has agreed to do the following, as set forth in the Agreement: