ILNews

Judge: Girls' basketball games schedule not discriminatory

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has ruled that 14 school corporations haven’t discriminated against girls’ basketball teams by scheduling more of their games on weeknights instead of weekends as compared to boys’ basketball games.

Amber Parker, the former girls’ basketball coach at Franklin County High School, filed the suit on behalf of her daughter, who played on the team, accusing the Indiana High School Athletic Association and 14 school districts in western and southwestern Indiana of discriminating against girls’ high school basketball programs. After Parker and her family moved out of state this year, Tammy Hurley and her daughter C.H., also a player, were added to the suit in July.

The plaintiffs claimed in Amber Parker, et al. v. Indiana High School Athletic Association, et al., No. 1:09-CV-885, that the IHSAA and the school districts violated Title IX and the 14th Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by scheduling the girls’ games on non-preferred dates and times, which are typically weeknights. The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana had previously dismissed the Title IX claim against the IHSAA, and granted the school districts' partial motion for summary judgment on the Section 1983 claims on Sept. 27, 2010. In an opinion released Wednesday, U.S. District Judge William Lawrence granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims – the Title IX claim against the school districts and the Section 1983 claim against the IHSAA.

The plaintiffs asserted an equal treatment claim against the school districts based on the scheduling of boys’ and girls’ basketball games, but the 1979 Policy Interpretation of Title IX doesn’t require identical scheduling for boys’ and girls’ sports. Their scheduling doesn’t deprive the girls’ team of role models, inhibit their skills development, or prevent team building.

“In short, the disparity in treatment in this case simply does not rise to the level seen in either Communities for Equity [v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass’n, 178 F.Supp 2d. 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001),] or McCormick [v. Sch. Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275, 288 (2d Cir. 2004)]. The School Defendants’ treatment of the Plaintiffs does not result in a disparity that is so substantial that it denies the Plaintiffs equality of athletic opportunity,” wrote the judge.

Judge Lawrence noted the novel theory the plaintiffs used to try to hold the IHSAA liable for its “deliberate indifference to gender-based discrimination” even though the IHSAA isn’t responsible for the schedules. The plaintiffs argued the IHSAA turned a blind eye to the discriminatory scheduling, and by not mandating gender equality, the organization facilitated the gender-based discrimination.

“The problem with the Plaintiffs’ argument is that despite their rhetoric, they have not cited a single federal case that supports using a deliberate indifference theory to hold the IHSAA liable in this situation,” he wrote. “Just because the Plaintiffs have allegedly suffered an injury does not mean that they can hold the IHSAA liable.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT