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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT