Three female coaches in California recently filed a lawsuit against the State Center Community College District to challenge gender discrimination in pay and job responsibilities that affect them as coaches at colleges operated by the District. One of the plaintiffs, Rhonda Williams, is head coach of the Fresno City College women's softball team and assistant coach of its golf team, while two others, Kathleen Kuball and Shannon Jeffries, coach at Reedley College in softball and volleyball respectively. They allege that while they have comparable or even more job responsibilities than their male counterparts, they are paid less because the District calculates compensation based on the number of "duty days" each coach is assigned and then assigning female coaches fewer duty days. They allege that this practice is a part of an overall pattern of discrimination against the women's sports programs in the District. The complaint alleges that this discrimination affects female athletes as well, and that it constitutes a violation of Title IX as well as state law.
These coaches join a growing list of others who have used Title IX and other related law (state law, Equal Pay Act, Title VII) to challenge discriminatory conditions in their employment. In fact, it was other coaches from Fresno -- at nearby Fresno State -- whose famously successful lawsuits in 2006-2007 kicked off what appears to the current trend of coaches going to court to fight for equality. Today, sex discrimination lawsuits filed by coaches are more common than those filed by athletes (probably because coaches incur more economic damages and hold their jobs for longer than students are athletes). Often, however, these lawsuits expose discriminatory practices that affect athletes and can lead to systemic change.
Showing posts with label community college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label community college. Show all posts
Thursday, February 01, 2018
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
Full Seventh Circuit Rules Sex Discrimination Includes Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination. The case that gave rise to the ruling involved an openly-lesbian adjunct professor, Kim Hively, who taught at Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana. She alleged that Ivy Tech rejected her applications for various full-time teaching positions and eventually terminated her adjunct status due to bias against her sexual orientation. She filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and other protected characteristics, but which does not provide express protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation. For this reason, a federal district court in Indiana dismissed her case. When she appealed to the Seventh Circuit, the three-judge panel that first heard her case agreed with the district court. But, the appellate court agreed to re-hear the case "en banc" with all judges participating. The full court's decision, which came out yesterday, reinstated Hivey's case and will allow her now to try to prove to the lower court that sexual orientation discrimination did in fact occur.
Even though Hively's case continues to be litigated, it has cleared a huge hurdle and in so doing, generated a significant appellate court decision on the relationship between sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Sex discrimination is generally evident in the comparison between how an employer treats an employee of one sex versus how that employer treats another otherwise-identical employee of the other sex. Using this paradigm, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that when an employer treats positively a male employee who has a female partner (or who is attracted to women), but treats adversely a female employee who has a female partner (or who is attracted to women), that is discrimination on the basis of the employee's sex. Though the discrimination targets the fact that the victim of such discrimination is partnered with or attracted to a person of the same sex, i.e., their homosexual orientation, such discrimination "does not exist without taking the victim's... sex...into account." We already know that sex discrimination works in this relational way (discriminating on the basis of some characteristic, like the victim's attraction to women, in relation to the victim's sex), because the Supreme Court endorsed that way of thinking about sex discrimination when it confirmed that it encompassed gender stereotyping. An employer's adverse action towards a female employee who exhibits a certain characteristic or appearance, but not a male employee who does the same is discrimination "that does not exist without taking the victim's sex into account." Additionally, the court considered the Supreme Court's precedent in Loving v. Virginia, which ruled that a state law banning interracial marriage was race discrimination prohibited under the Constitution. If discrimination based on the race one is oriented to is race discrimination, then discrimination based on the sex one is oriented to is sex discrimination.
The Seventh Circuit decision is the first appellate court decision to employ this reasoning (for a lower court example, see Videckis v. Pepperdine, a Title IX case). Other appellate courts in the (sometimes distant) past have ruled against the gay or lesbian plaintiff on the grounds that Congress could have, but did not, include sexual orientation as a Title VII protected characteristic. The Seventh Circuit's departure from this reasoning sets up a circuit split that gives the Supreme Court a reason to weigh in should it so choose. Although the court's decision interprets the sex discrimination provision in Title VII, it and any Supreme Court decision that affirms it, should there be one, will no doubt be influential in the Title IX context as well, since courts routinely refer to definitions of sex discrimination from Title VII cases when analyzing what it means under Title IX.
I also think this decision, though about sexual orientation, will help support the argument that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of transgender status, since transgender discrimination also targets a characteristic relative to the person's sex. Discrimination against someone because their gender identity is not consonant with their birth-assigned sex is discrimination "that does not exist without taking the victim's sex into account." I would expect the Hively decision to be cited favorably by litigants challenging exclusion of transgender students and employees from gender-consonant restrooms and other manners of discrimination.
Even though Hively's case continues to be litigated, it has cleared a huge hurdle and in so doing, generated a significant appellate court decision on the relationship between sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Sex discrimination is generally evident in the comparison between how an employer treats an employee of one sex versus how that employer treats another otherwise-identical employee of the other sex. Using this paradigm, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that when an employer treats positively a male employee who has a female partner (or who is attracted to women), but treats adversely a female employee who has a female partner (or who is attracted to women), that is discrimination on the basis of the employee's sex. Though the discrimination targets the fact that the victim of such discrimination is partnered with or attracted to a person of the same sex, i.e., their homosexual orientation, such discrimination "does not exist without taking the victim's... sex...into account." We already know that sex discrimination works in this relational way (discriminating on the basis of some characteristic, like the victim's attraction to women, in relation to the victim's sex), because the Supreme Court endorsed that way of thinking about sex discrimination when it confirmed that it encompassed gender stereotyping. An employer's adverse action towards a female employee who exhibits a certain characteristic or appearance, but not a male employee who does the same is discrimination "that does not exist without taking the victim's sex into account." Additionally, the court considered the Supreme Court's precedent in Loving v. Virginia, which ruled that a state law banning interracial marriage was race discrimination prohibited under the Constitution. If discrimination based on the race one is oriented to is race discrimination, then discrimination based on the sex one is oriented to is sex discrimination.
The Seventh Circuit decision is the first appellate court decision to employ this reasoning (for a lower court example, see Videckis v. Pepperdine, a Title IX case). Other appellate courts in the (sometimes distant) past have ruled against the gay or lesbian plaintiff on the grounds that Congress could have, but did not, include sexual orientation as a Title VII protected characteristic. The Seventh Circuit's departure from this reasoning sets up a circuit split that gives the Supreme Court a reason to weigh in should it so choose. Although the court's decision interprets the sex discrimination provision in Title VII, it and any Supreme Court decision that affirms it, should there be one, will no doubt be influential in the Title IX context as well, since courts routinely refer to definitions of sex discrimination from Title VII cases when analyzing what it means under Title IX.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
OCR Title IX Roundup
Here are links for a few recent stories about administrative enforcement of Title IX:
The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has entered into an agreement with Mercer County Community College in New Jersey that will require the college to revise its grievance procedure to comply with Title IX requirements and review all sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints filed in the last academic year to determine whether those requirements were satisfied. The college's grievance procedure must be revised on a number of matters such as identifying its application to all matters of sex discrimination including sexual harassment and sexual violence, clarifying the process for filing a complaint, establishing a prompt time frame for resolution, endorsing a preponderance evidence standard of proof, and providing similar procedural rights for the complainant and respondent.
OCR has reportedly opened three investigations at universities in the state of Texas in the past year, including a broadly-focused one at Texas A&M that will consider a male student's complaint that the university's disciplinary process violates male respondents' rights. The complainant in that case was suspended for seven months after a disciplinary hearing found that he had violated university policy by forcing a female student to have oral sex with him. Though OCR investigations into issues related to sexual assault typically focus on the rights of the complainant, it is not unprecedented for OCR to investigate respondent's rights as it is doing here, as demonstrated by an ongoing investigation at Brandeis.
The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has entered into an agreement with Mercer County Community College in New Jersey that will require the college to revise its grievance procedure to comply with Title IX requirements and review all sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints filed in the last academic year to determine whether those requirements were satisfied. The college's grievance procedure must be revised on a number of matters such as identifying its application to all matters of sex discrimination including sexual harassment and sexual violence, clarifying the process for filing a complaint, establishing a prompt time frame for resolution, endorsing a preponderance evidence standard of proof, and providing similar procedural rights for the complainant and respondent.
OCR has reportedly opened three investigations at universities in the state of Texas in the past year, including a broadly-focused one at Texas A&M that will consider a male student's complaint that the university's disciplinary process violates male respondents' rights. The complainant in that case was suspended for seven months after a disciplinary hearing found that he had violated university policy by forcing a female student to have oral sex with him. Though OCR investigations into issues related to sexual assault typically focus on the rights of the complainant, it is not unprecedented for OCR to investigate respondent's rights as it is doing here, as demonstrated by an ongoing investigation at Brandeis.
A student at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater filed
a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights alleging that the Dean of Students did not adequately respond to a
sexual assault she reported; specifically, in that the Dean failed to interview
witnesses to the incident or accept the student's police report or medical
records from the incident. She also alleges that it was three months
before her assailant was removed from her classes.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Madison Area Technical College Agrees to Enhance Women's Athletics
Madison Area Technical College in Wisconsin has agreed to add opportunities and resources for women's sports, as part of a voluntary resolution agreement with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to ensure compliance with Title IX. We noted last December that the school was under investigation by OCR after receiving a complaint about inequities in MATC athletics. The college, with a 53 male student body, presently offers 62 athletic opportunities (and a near identical percentage) for men in a total of four sports, with the support of 16 coaches. Female students, who make up 47% of the student body, have 37 opportunities in three sports, with 3 coaches. No female students receive athletic scholarships, while members of the men's baseball team do.
To remedy these imbalances, the college has committed to adding women's soccer, a step it had already announced while the OCR investigation was underway. The college is planning to hire a coach later this year and field a team in 2014. In addition, it will elevate its softball team to Division II of the National Junior College Athletic Association, so that it may provide scholarships to its members. OCR will monitor MATC's compliance with this agreement for the next three years.
To remedy these imbalances, the college has committed to adding women's soccer, a step it had already announced while the OCR investigation was underway. The college is planning to hire a coach later this year and field a team in 2014. In addition, it will elevate its softball team to Division II of the National Junior College Athletic Association, so that it may provide scholarships to its members. OCR will monitor MATC's compliance with this agreement for the next three years.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Title IX and community colleges
The NYT ran a very interesting article last week about the application of and compliance with Title IX at the country's community colleges.
Community colleges face unique challenges when trying to comply with the law. It's non-traditional student body, of which women make up the majority--often a large majority, has lead many community colleges to believe they cannot possibly comply. Additionally, community colleges are facing the same--if not worse--budget issues as four-year institutions.
But this does not mean they are exempt from providing their female students with opportunities to play sports.
Many women who attend community colleges are juggling multiple roles in addition to being students: parent, employee, domestic caregiver/doer. They are often older. But, according to Katie Thomas's article, male students have similar constraints.
In my mind all this means is that the fact that community colleges offer fewer sports than 4-year institutions makes sense. The community college population is less likely to be able to fit sports into their schedules.
The article highlights several schools that are complying--but they work at it. They recruit. And actually, it isn't very hard. Athletic directors have found that when they tell women there are spots for them--they come. Interest and ability? Sounds like it's there is many cases.
And, again, measuring interest in a responsible way--and probably in a way that would be specific, here, to a community college population--is always an option.
I've taught at community colleges. There is a very unique student population, which makes community colleges really great places to work and go to school in many respects. But not so unique that community colleges get a pass on providing gender equity.
Community colleges face unique challenges when trying to comply with the law. It's non-traditional student body, of which women make up the majority--often a large majority, has lead many community colleges to believe they cannot possibly comply. Additionally, community colleges are facing the same--if not worse--budget issues as four-year institutions.
But this does not mean they are exempt from providing their female students with opportunities to play sports.
Many women who attend community colleges are juggling multiple roles in addition to being students: parent, employee, domestic caregiver/doer. They are often older. But, according to Katie Thomas's article, male students have similar constraints.
In my mind all this means is that the fact that community colleges offer fewer sports than 4-year institutions makes sense. The community college population is less likely to be able to fit sports into their schedules.
The article highlights several schools that are complying--but they work at it. They recruit. And actually, it isn't very hard. Athletic directors have found that when they tell women there are spots for them--they come. Interest and ability? Sounds like it's there is many cases.
And, again, measuring interest in a responsible way--and probably in a way that would be specific, here, to a community college population--is always an option.
I've taught at community colleges. There is a very unique student population, which makes community colleges really great places to work and go to school in many respects. But not so unique that community colleges get a pass on providing gender equity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)