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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT