Titke IX supreme court case

[Dan_ref]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...s-equity_x.htm

[Stat-Man]

IANAL*, but it seems to me that this sounds more like a whistleblower case than a gender equity case.

(And here I thought maybe our season lawsuit was accepted by the supreme court.)


* I am not a lawyer

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Stat-Man
IANAL*, but it seems to me that this sounds more like a whistleblower case than a gender equity case.

(And here I thought maybe our season lawsuit was accepted by the supreme court.)


* I am not a lawyer

Whatever.

I considered it a public service to post a link that does not incite the Ron Artest fans to idiocy.

[Stat-Man]

Dan_Ref

I wasn't criticizing you or the link you posted by any stretch. Perhaps I should elaborate on my impressions after reading that article.

I feel that while the coach was bringing up what he thought was Title IX issues, his lawsuit seems to be more about being fired for being a whistleblower.

I am also curious what, if anything, was done about the original complaint: girls practicing in conditions that the coach felt were below those the boys practiced in. (Maybe that will be the subject of the next lawsuit).

My original parenthetical comment concerns the lawsuit in Michigan to switch seasons around, especially girls basketball and volleyball. The MHSAA's most recent appeal was rejected and they are planning to appeal to the Supreme Court. So I thought that just _maybe_ the court had decided to hear the case already. I'm anxious to see what happens with this suit since it will impact what I do next fall.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

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]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Stat-Man
Dan_Ref

I wasn't criticizing you or the link you posted by any stretch. Perhaps I should elaborate on my impressions after reading that article.

I feel that while the coach was bringing up what he thought was Title IX issues, his lawsuit seems to be more about being fired for being a whistleblower.

I am also curious what, if anything, was done about the original complaint: girls practicing in conditions that the coach felt were below those the boys practiced in. (Maybe that will be the subject of the next lawsuit).

My original parenthetical comment concerns the lawsuit in Michigan to switch seasons around, especially girls basketball and volleyball. The MHSAA's most recent appeal was rejected and they are planning to appeal to the Supreme Court. So I thought that just _maybe_ the court had decided to hear the case already. I'm anxious to see what happens with this suit since it will impact what I do next fall.

No need to explain yourself. I knew what you meant, I agree with you and I took no offense.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Stat-Man
My original parenthetical comment concerns the lawsuit in Michigan to switch seasons around, especially girls basketball and volleyball. The MHSAA's most recent appeal was rejected and they are planning to appeal to the Supreme Court. So I thought that just _maybe_ the court had decided to hear the case already. I'm anxious to see what happens with this suit since it will impact what I do next fall.

In NV: volleyball in the fall, basketball in the winter.
I would like to know if this case goes anywhere. I will search for it.
We play s soccer in the fall up north, but the s in the south play in the winter, which makes it impossible to have a state championship for the s.
Our boys seasons are fall for both north and south, so they do hold a 4A boys state tourney. The s are starting to grumble that they don't have one too. I think rightly so.

Sorry, rainmaker. Had to do it once!

[Robmoz]

In regards to the MHSAA (MIchigan) Gender Equity lawsuit you can learn about the original issue, commentaries, explanations, discussions, and current status at the state association website. Here is the link for the Lawsuit page and a sample of what you'll find there:

• Main Page http://www.mhsaa.com/news/gesuit.html
• Duke University Law School Opinion http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?53+Duke+L.+J.+223
• What's At Stake? http://www.mhsaa.com/news/gestake.html
• What do the Girls Think? http://www.wmich.edu/wmu/news/2001/0103/0001-227.html
• What the Judge Thinks http://www.mhsaa.com/news/02ruling.html

There are some compelling arguments favoring the MHSAA position that seem to be ignored by the courts. I would encourage you to read ALL of the information presented at this weblink prior to commenting. It is quite an interesting situation that will impact the entire country (relating to high school athletics).

[Kelvin green]

I think it would be interesting to see if one of the girls in Birmingham who does have standing got someone to file a suit.

The interesting thing about this case is that it is a white male who is trying to get the gender equity issue in the area looked at.

I think the Michigan case is interesting, I would be curious what the Circuit court say...

Personally putting girls basketball in a non traditional season seems to relegate it to second class.

The Michigan arguments sound an awfully like the "separate but equal" arguments that eventually fell on deaf ears...

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Stat-Man]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
No need to explain yourself. I knew what you meant, I agree with you and I took no offense.

That's the problem with message board, you never know how to read the tone of one's posts.

And we have a nice discussion going now

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
...I think the Michigan case is interesting, I would be curious what the Circuit court say...

Circuit Court refused to hear the case on a full panel appeal and the MHSAA has taken it to the US Supreme Court.

Originally posted by Kelvin Green
Personally putting girls basketball in a non traditional season seems to relegate it to second class.

I strongly encourage you to read the information posted at the MHSAA website (noted in above replies}. In fact, letting the non-traditional season to continue actually elevates the girls from second class by giving them their own season.

Granted, some people have strong opinions on this topic but many are misinformed about the facts, circumstances, logistics, and effects that exist regardeless of what direction the case concludes.

As an official, I urge you to please take the time to read up on this important issue so that you can be informed when others come to you for your opinion.

[ShadowStripes]

If a coach points out that he or she is being relegated to second class facilities, common sense justice (which, unfortunately, fails to exist in most cases these days) from my athletic director's office would dictate the following: Whoever draws the higher attendance and higher concession sales during the season gets first crack at the bigger gym for practice.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by ShadowStripes
If a coach points out that he or she is being relegated to second class facilities, common sense justice (which, unfortunately, fails to exist in most cases these days) from my athletic director's office would dictate the following: Whoever draws the higher attendance and higher concession sales during the season gets first crack at the bigger gym for practice.

Lah me, what a way to balance facility use amongst otherwise equal students.