chapter 8 Gender Equity

Chapter Objectives After reading this chapter, you will know the following: The various federal gender equity laws and how they apply to sport The history of Title IX, how it has been interpreted, and how it is applied today The definition of sexual harassment and how it is regulated in sport The various types of employment discrimination laws

Nothing more controversial… Gender Equity Laws have caused great debate Most often is a matter of funding The primary issues these laws try to address are equal opportunity and access.

Underrepresentation Women have been and continue to be underrepresented in athletics. –In1971: 16,000 women total in college athletics –In 2008: 9,101 women’s teams –In High school participation: 2,953,355 girls, 4,206,549 boys College participation: 168,583 women, 224,926 men Title IX has drastically improved the participation of girls and women in sports since 1972.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the foundational law behind Title IX Forced schools and employers to honor the civil right of minority groups. Race Religion Age Gender Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972…originally mentioned nothing about athletics

Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Title IX applies if any department in a school receives federal funding, the law applies to the entire school –In response to Grove City ruling, Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (page 183) Today, institutions receiving any form of federal assistance must be in compliance with Title IX. This applies to almost every college or university.

A Legal Setback to Title IX: Grove City College v. Bell 1984 case dealing with the application of Title IX. One of the biggest setbacks for women since passage in Court found that Title IX was applicable only to those parts of the institution that received federal funding; thus athletics were excluded.

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 The “re-inforcement” of Title IX Legislation reversed the findings in Grove City College and applied Title IX institution- wide. Thus, if any part of an institution received federal funding, the entire institution was subject to the specifications in Title IX.

Regulation and Enforcement Department of Education –1975 regulations focus on equal opportunity: Program areas (i.e., equipment, locker rooms) Effective accommodation of interests and abilities and selection of sports for both genders Equivalency in financial aid –1979 Policy Interpretation designed to provide ways for schools to measure whether they comply with Title IX and the 1975 regulations Part 1: Financial assistance Part 2: Equality in program areas Part 3: Effective accommodation

“A Sporting Chance” Video

The Three-Part Test Focus of much of Title IX litigation Prong 1 –Are participation opportunities for both sexes substantially proportionate? –This is a safe harbor (see book definition) if participation of underrepresented sex is substantially proportionate to other sex. If so, then stop here because compliance is determined; if not... Prong 2 –Can the institution show a history and continuing practice of program expansion responsive to developing interests of women? If yes, stop here; if not... Prong 3 –Have the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex been fully and effectively accommodated? Schools must survey!

The Three-Part Test (continued) Institutions do not need to meet each prong…just one part Any one prong of the three-part test, if met, demonstrates compliance with Title IX

(1992)Cohen v. Brown University another Watershed Ruling The university, needing to cut its budget, eliminated university funding for men’s golf and water polo and women’s gymnastics and volleyball.  Brown cut 2 small men’s teams and 2 large women’s –Brown challenged with the argument that women were interested enough in sport opportunities to offer a proportionate number of sport programs –The ruling is regarded as a victory for women because the First Circuit Court of Appeals took the position that Title IX meant that equal representation for women in sports had to be proportionate to the student body population

1996 Clarification Reiterated that three-part test is really three individual ways to comply with Title IX Prong 1: Substantial proportionality only an issue if there are enough athletes to sustain a team Prong 2: To meet this, school must continuously expand opportunities in response to women’s interests Prong 3: Must effectively accommodate interests and abilities of admitted and enrolled students

Separate Teams Schools may sponsor teams for members of one sex (have separate men’s and women’s basketball teams) –if selection is based on athletic skill, or –if sport is a contact sport. –Mercer v. Duke University, 1999, 2002 reversal However, there is no contact sport exception. Contact sports, even if predominantly male, are still taken into account when evaluating a school’s compliance with Title IX.

Cutting Teams Cutting men’s teams are allowed under prong 1 of the three part test Done to bring number of male participants into substantial proportionality with number of female participants This is a big criticism against Title IX In most cases, men’s sports have been cut rather than women’s sports added. Many lawsuits like Kelly v. Board of Trustees (1994) has been initiated as reverse discrimination Men also sue if the gender ratio formula is not met. (continued)

Cutting Teams (continued) Miami University Wrestling Club v. Miami University (2002) –1997: 55% female students, 47% female student athletes –Men sued after university cut four men’s teams –Court dismissed their complaint because members of “overrepresented sex” (men) do not have a claim under the three-part test

Cutting Women’s Teams Men from cut teams have never won a lawsuit against a school Cutting of women’s teams is never allowed because women tend to be the underrepresented sex Existence of women’s team is evidence of interest and ability Roberts v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture (1993) –In response to disproportionate numbers of women participating, university cut women’s and men’s team –Women sued –Court ordered school to reinstate women’s team

Pat Summitt 2012 ESPY’s Video eK-WJklGo

Disclosure of Information Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (1998) “Requires all universities that receive federal student aid and have athletic programs to disclose information related to financial aid, athletic revenues, and other resources” –Information available to the public at

Employment Discrimination In 1972, 90% of head coaches of women’s sports were women In 2008, that figure was 42.8%

Title VII “Prohibits discrimination against any employee on the basis of sex in compensation and other benefits associated with employment” Plaintiff merely has to show some negative job action (for example, termination) that was taken on the basis of the employee’s sex

Equal Pay Act “Prohibits discrimination in wages between employees on the basis of sex for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. “ Equal work: Two jobs do not have to require identical skill, effort, and responsibility; instead, the jobs must be substantially equal except for the fact that one employee is paid more even though he performs what is basically the same job.

Implications of Risk Management Failure to comply with Title IX can be costly to institution: –Financial burdens –Image of institution –Satisfaction of participants Coaches and administrators –Sexual harassment –Lawsuits involving EPA and Title VII