Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
A coach points out that his players are being illegally sent to the side gym, and is fired, and Scalia's biggest concern is that "lousy coaches" might hide behind Title IX? It doesn't happen very often, but for once, I'm speechless.
|
rainmaker,
I have actually followed this year's Supreme Court docket, which also includes medicinal marajuana (oral argument heard Monday morning).
This case is not about the equity of the practice environment for boys' and girls' teams. It is about whether or not the coach was wrongfully terminated.
This case properly belongs there, not under Title IX.
I was frankly stunned that the high court even agreed to hear it. The case is purely about whether the coach has standing to sue for damages under Title IX. I believe that he doesn't.
I even wrote a letter to my state's attorney general, who I just learned may well be leaving office as he was nominated for federal district judge, about this case.
I was most happy to see this final sentence in the article:
"The National School Boards Association and nine states Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia are backing Birmingham."
[Edited by Nevadaref on Dec 1st, 2004 at 05:10 AM]
|
Nevada -- I'm not a lowyer, and I don't play one on TV. But I do understand the concept of standing, and the issue of equity and so on. My thoughts are that the damage to the coach is a direct result of the infraction of Title IX and the school district's unwillingness to face the Title IX issue. Therefore, the firing is indeed a Title IX offense. The "lousy coach" theory is completely bogus. We know for a fact that in the area of race as an example, a plaintiff has to prove his or her case, and all the school district needs to do is show incompetence.
Still I agree with whoever said a player or parent should sue regarding the equity issue. That would definitely be interesting.