Female Athletes at Campbell High School File Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Claiming Unequal Treatment of Girls’ Athletic Programs | American Civil Liberties Union (original) (raw)

Class action lawsuit aims to end discrimination based on sex, stop illegal retaliation by school

December 6, 2018 9:15 am

HONOLULU: Today, two female student-athletes attending James Campbell High School (“Campbell”) filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the Hawaiʻi State Department of Education (“DOE”) and the Oahu Interscholastic Association (“OIA”). The lawsuit is brought under Title IX, also known as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, a federal law that requires gender equity in education, including in athletics.

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, Legal Aid At Work, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. In the complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai‘i, plaintiffs allege that the DOE and the OIA have discriminated against female athletes on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX.

One of the plaintiffs said: “I feel like I am left out and constantly having to fight for my equity and work five times harder for the opportunities and successes that I want as an athlete. It feels like we don’t matter as much, and that the DOE only wants to fix things when it gets bad or when someone complains because they’re caught in a mess, not because they care.”

The other plaintiff added: “I know so many girls that are passionate and good at what they do but they always get pushed aside. There’s also many girls that want to participate in more sports but they decide not to because the school offers us no support. The boys always get better opportunities, and it’s not fair. I’m worried for my little sister, who just started school at Campbell, and I don’t want her or any other girls to go through we’ve had to. It’s time for a change, that should’ve happened a long time ago.”

Title IX requires equal treatment and benefits in athletic programs – things like locker rooms, practice facilities, and competitive facilities; equipment and supplies; scheduling of games and practice times; availability and quality coaching; travel opportunities; medical and training services and facilities; participation opportunities, and publicity and promotion. The lawsuit describes multiple violations, including:

ACLU of Hawai‘i Executive Director Joshua Wisch said, “Litigation is always our last resort. But unfortunately, nearly half a century after Title IX was passed and after almost 10 months of trying to work with the DOE, it still failed to produce a substantive plan to comply with the law. And unfortunately, some schools have doubled down on violating Title IX. As noted in our complaint, after the plaintiffs complained formally to Campbell’s administrators, the school retaliated by threatening to ‘cancel’ the girls’ water polo program and even withheld funding and other support from it. This is unacceptable.”

The plaintiffs ask the court:

The plaintiffs seek no money for themselves. In making this a class action lawsuit, they want changes to the system for the benefit of themselves, present and future female athletes.

Legal Aid At Work Senior Attorney Elizabeth Kristen said: “Female students deserve a level playing field. Girls who play sports in high school go on to make higher wages as adults compared to their non-athlete peers so achieving the promise of Title IX helps girls thrive in today’s workplace and world.”

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett Counsel Jayma Meyer said: “Playing sports results in many benefits, including positive self-esteem and confidence, better education and employment opportunities, improved emotional and physical health, and valuable life-lessons such as teamwork and resilience. We must stop short-changing girls. Girls are entitled to the same opportunities and treatment in sports as the boys and accordingly to all the benefits that result from playing sports.”

Hawai‘i has a special connection to “Title IX”, passed June 23, 1972, which created life-changing opportunities for all students, especially girls, to pursue their dreams in education and sports. Hawaii’s own Patsy Takemoto Mink was the principal author and driving force behind the legislation. Mink worked tirelessly for education reform during her political career and overcame gender and racial discrimination to become the first woman from Hawai‘i elected to Congress. She also has the distinction of being the first woman of color and the first Asian American woman elected to Congress.

The ACLU of Hawaiʻi has challenged the DOE over Title IX before. In 2010, the ACLU of Hawai‘i won a lawsuit against the DOE over gender inequities in the girls’ softball program at Maui’s Baldwin High School.

Related Content

How “Stay-or-Pay” Contracts Are Used to Abuse Immigrant Workers

Shiny Lal came to the U.S. to chase the American dream, instead she found herself in an abusive employment contract that could cost her nearly $40,000. Today, we’re urging the world’s largest private dispute resolution company to stop abusing workers.
By: Rachel Dempsey, Gillian Thomas, Ricardo Mimbela
How “Stay-or-Pay” Contracts Are Used to Abuse Immigrant Workers

At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth

WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.”
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth

Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here.
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care