reinstate her state law contract claim, over which the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The parties will bear their own costs on this appeal. 1 . According to the NCAA rules, a student-athlete is eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics for a total of four seasons within a five-year period. Because Smith’s five year-period of eli-. gibility has expired and, according to the NCAA her complaint seeks only declaratory relief, the NCAA concludes that her Title DC claim is moot. We disagree. Smith’s Title DC claim is not moot although her period of eligibility has expired because she retains a claim for damages. See Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 442, 104 S.Ct. 1883, 1889, 80 L.Ed.2d 428 (1984) (<HOLDING>); National Iranian Oil Co. v. Mapco Intern.,
holding that such a theory is viable under title vii holding that an appeal was not moot because the amendment to the ordinance at bar did not give the petitioner the relief sought so that the petitioners claim and injury remain viable holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim recognizing a challenge to jurisdiction as a viable claim