IBJNews

Lawyer: Girls hoops schedule decree sets precedent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal consent decree in which 10 southeastern Indiana high schools agree to schedule girls and boys basketball games equally on Friday and Saturday nights sets a legal precedent for the entire state, one of the attorneys in the case said Tuesday.

The consent decree between Franklin County Community School Corp., former girls basketball coach Amber Parker and nine of its opponent schools calls for girls and boys games to be scheduled equally by the 2016-17 school year, with interim steps until then, said attorney William Groth, who represented Parker in the case.

The decree approved Monday in federal court in Indianapolis applies directly only to the 10 schools but sets a solid legal precedent across the entire 7th U.S. Circuit because the federal appeals court ruled earlier this year that equal scheduling for both genders is required under Title IX of the Higher Education Act, Groth said.

"The 7th Circuit's decision earlier this year sent a clear message not only to the lower federal courts but to all high school athletic directors that Title IX requires equality in all phases of high school athletics, including the scheduling of athletic contests," Groth said.

Parker filed suit in 2009 on behalf of a daughter and while coaching at the school in Brookville, about 60 miles southeast of Indianapolis. She subsequently was fired as girls basketball coach and sued the Franklin County schools separately for retaliation. She won a $28,500 judgment in federal court a year ago, and has moved from Indiana.

"As a coach, I feel it has been a long time coming!" Parker said in a statement distributed through Groth. "On a personal level, it cost me the profession I love but I know that one day I will look back on the impact this decision has had for the girls in Indiana and be proud of the sacrifices and persistence it took to make this happen."

Parker said that if she ever returns to Indiana her youngest daughter, now 4, "will have the pleasure of playing on Friday nights."

Parker's case challenged the practice of schools giving boys' games preference for "prime time," or Friday and Saturday nights and the night before Thanksgiving.

Under the consent decree, Franklin County and the schools it plays agree to schedule at least two more girls games during prime time in 2013-14 than it did in 2011-12, at least four more the following year, and at least six more in 2015-16 until reaching scheduling parity in 2016-17.

"We would have liked to have seen the timetable for getting to full equality accelerated," Groth said. Because schools schedule games years in advance and sign contracts, "we had to agree to phase in these steps toward equality."

The Franklin County schools' superintendent, Debbie Howell, issued a statement saying the district "is pleased that a settlement has been reached that will allow the school corp. to continue to move forward in providing opportunities for both our female and our male student-athletes."

Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said the settlement of the case "is a great victory for the Indiana girls affected by their school's unfair scheduling practices."

"It is simply unacceptable that as standard operating procedure a school would consistently prioritize boys' athletics schedules over that of the girls. This case sends a strong reminder to all schools that they must treat girls fairly in all aspects of athletics," Greenberger said.

Commissioner Bobby Cox of the Indiana High School Athletic Association said it encourages its member schools to provide equity in scheduling, but "there's some schools that have an imbalance."

"Friday and Saturday opportunities for girls have increased over the years," Cox said. However, "some schools may feel the Friday and Saturday nights are not the best opportunities for girls."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Not true
    Dupree, that isn't true. Our high school has several nights where the boys and girls varsity teams both play home games on Friday and/or Saturday nights. The JV boys and girls then play Saturday morning. It is possible and the interest for both is there.
  • I am a sports fan!
    I am a femal sports fan but I am not inclined to watch women's basketball because I would rather watch the BEST, male or female. Boy's basketball draws the crowds, that is why it gets the better schedule! What next! How about scheduling Freshman football on Friday nights and giving Varsity football Saturday mornings? Are we age discriminating by always scheduling varsity on Friday?
  • Now lets force the pep band and fans to attend.
    The schedule was not to discriminate against women. The schedule was to make money. Now girls will play at home on Friday while the boys play away. The girls will drop sports so they can join their friends on Friday nights. It has nothing to do with equal time for females. (I would bet 80% of the coaches and players don't want Friday games.) It is attorney money driven.
  • Really?
    Women's sports won't ever gain an auduience until women become sports fans and support there own, no matter what night they play.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT