ILNews

Mom sues over girls' high school basketball schedule

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Franklin County mother is suing the Indiana High School Athletic Association and multiple school districts claiming discrimination against the girl’s basketball team based on when the girls play their games.

The suit, brought by a mother of a Franklin County High School girl’s basketball player, accuses the IHSAA and school districts in western and southwestern Indiana of discriminating against girls’ high school basketball programs.

The suit stems from when games are scheduled for the girls’ team. The preferred time for games is Friday and Saturday evenings because there is no school the next day and there are likely to be bigger crowds, yet the boys’ teams play on these days and times more frequently than the girls’ teams, according to the suit.

Girls’ games are more frequently scheduled on weeknights, which “negatively and disproportionately” impact the girls’ academic studies. The suit says this intentional discrimination against members of a protected class violates the 14th Amendment.

The suit accuses the IHSAA of knowing about the discriminatory scheduling practices of the schools but remained indifferent, and that it was warned in 1997 by the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education that association members could be found out of compliance of Title IX if Friday nights are reserved for boys’ games.

The suit, Tammy Hurley, on behalf of her minor daughter, C.H v. Indiana High School Athletic Association, Franklin County Community School Corp., et al., No. 1:10-CV-913, was filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The suit seeks a jury trial and award of injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and other fees.

This suit comes almost exactly one year after Amber Parker, the former Franklin County High School girls’ basketball coach from 2007-2009, filed a similar suit on behalf of her daughters against the same defendants regarding the scheduling of boys’ and girls’ games. That case is pending in the Southern District’s Indianapolis Division.

That case remains pending in the Southern District. On a related issue and case, the Indiana Supreme Court is also considering player eligibility with the pending case of Indiana High School Athletic Association v. Jasmine S. Watson, et al., No. 71S03-1002-CV-119.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT