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

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