Michigan high school softball field controversy

The girls' softball team in Avondale, Michigan is embarrassed by the condition of their field. And the players and their supporters are wondering where the money earmarked for the facility's improvement have gone--as they stare at the newly renovated boys' baseball facility that has a dedicated field for the junior varsity team. And even as they ask questions about where the promised improvements are, many know nothing will happen in the immediate future. So the girls are working with administrators on an arrangement that would allow the softball team to share the JV team's field. (Not sure how they will deal with the differences in the field dimensions, but I would imagine they have a plan.)
Best line of the article:
At the very least, Avondale made a mistake in timing. After all, shortchanging a female team on the 40th anniversary of Title IX isn't the best way to win plaudits from equal opportunity advocates.

No evidence of discrimination in SC high school

About nine months ago, we wrote about a complaint filed in Kershaw County, South Carolina where parents of a high school cheerleader felt the team was not being treated equally. Also there was some financial sketchiness about where the cheerleading team's money had gone.
At that time I noted that an OCR investigation would be interesting because cheerleading, in the way they are doing it in Kershaw County, is not recognized as a sport.
But this article, which states that the OCR investigation revealed no discriminatory treatment, does not mention this aspect at all. The complaint about access to quality coaching, funding, and facilities was apparently filed on behalf of all female student-athletes and thus, I would presume, does not apply specifically to the cheerleaders. But there was another complaint which mentioned similar issues that was filed in reference to the treatment the school gave to its softball team. The investigation into this claim also yielded no evidence of discriminatory actions or results.
Despite the confusion over which team was allegedly being discriminated against and whether cheerleading is a sport that receives equal treatment--it seems this case is closed.

More coaches in PA?

Parents of student-athletes on the girls' cross-country and softball teams have gone to the Daniel Boone School Board (in Pennsylvania) asking why their teams do not have assistant coaches. The boys' baseball team has an assistant coach. Worried about the safety of the members, parents are asking for funds to pay for assistant coaches for these teams and wondering if the lack of assistants currently is a Title IX violation.
We cannot say based on the information in this brief article. Do other girls' teams have assistant coaches? How many of the boys' teams have assistant coaches?
These are the things the school board--and the parents--will want to investigate when the issue comes up next at a board meeting.
I found this situation interesting in light of the recent trend in complaints where schools are being cited for multiple violations at once. This is a very specific complaint. I surmise that parents felt the absence of assistant coaches is an issue that needs remedying and sought a legal and persuasive way to remedy it--and they found Title IX.

Softball field issues in Butte

In an attempt to remedy an "inadequate" softball field used the by high school girls' softball team in Butte, Montana, two of the team's former assistant coaches. This story caught my attention because it was confusing and curious in multiple ways.
First, why are the two men filing the complaint former coaches. It is clear that they have raised this issue with the school district and are trying to work cooperatively toward a remedy. So it does not sound as if they were forced out of their positions.
Second, and this harkens back to my post about media coverage of Title IX, the article states that they filed a complaint with OCR but the remainder of the initial clearly bastardized taken from the AP version of the article that I saw refers to the complaint as a lawsuit. I am pretty sure, based on the information provided, that this is a complaint. One, OCR isn't involved in lawsuits (in this way) and two, I am not sure the two former coaches have standing in such a lawsuit.
Also, there is mention of some kind of statute of limitations that the men felt forced them to notify OCR in a timely manner (60 days) even as they continue to work for a solution to the problem. The coaches had filed a grievance noting that the fields, which are not owned by the school district (the coaches would like a district-owned field), lack proper bathroom facilities, are not well-maintained, have no scoreboard or storage along with other amenities. And, according to the article, OCR is expected to get back to them within 10 days.
The last interesting moment: apparently there was 1982 case regarding opportunities for girls in Butte. In the initial grievance, the complainants asked the Montana High School Association to evaluate the condition of the fields using the conditions of that settlement as a guideline. [But a 1982 lawsuit about opportunities for high school girls--that's intriguing.]
MHSA said the fields were indeed inadequate. The school district has been working on plans for new and improved fields. They have consulted architects and have plans both for improving the current fields as well as creating fields at the high school. So it remains unclear why the need for an OCR complaint at this point. The coaches and other supporters of softball do feel they have been left out of the plans for improvements. An OCR investigation (if it happens), of course, will look at more than just the softball fields. 
When more information/clarifications emerge, we'll be sure to post them.

Evergreen School District Resolves Title IX Complaint

Evergreen School District in Washington State has reportedly entered into a voluntary resolution agreement with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Under the agreement, OCR agrees to suspend its investigation that was triggered this summer by a complaint that the school district favored boys baseball with better facilities, uniforms, and equipment as compared to softball. In particular, at two of the district's high schools, the complaint alleged that the district had neglected to repair damage on the softball fields, that the fields lacked drainage and irrigation, as well as fences, batting and pitching machines and cages, and proximity to bathrooms and drinking water.

For its part, the school district agrees to assess its baseball and softball programs along these lines and to devise and implement an action plan to address any discrepancies that the assessment reveals -- in other words, the school district agrees to do what Title IX already requires. The agreement provides deadlines by which the district shall accomplish these tasks, and affords OCR the opportunity to monitor and review the district's efforts.

Mississippi High School Coach Sues District

Catherine Papagolos, former softball coach, filed suit against the Lafayette County School District in Mississippi, claiming that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about gender equity in her salary. Specifically, it is reported that she alleged she was fired after questioning why her salary was not comparable to that of the high school baseball coach.

While Title IX does not require coaches in similar sports to be paid the same -- factors like experience and other qualifications, size of team, and size of staff may justify differences -- it is important that for protection from retaliation to kick in, all that is required is Coach Papagolos's reasonable belief that a violation had occured. No one should get fired for complaining in good faith about the gender equity of a district's policy or decision.

School District to Renovate Softball Fields

The Kennett Consolidated School District in Chester County, Pennsylvania, will improve its girls' softball field, having voted this week to retain a contractor to design and conduct the renovation, at an estimated cost of $30,000. Reportedly, the boys' baseball fields have better playing surfaces, dugouts, and a scoreboard, and the school board wants to bring the girls' fields to the same level in order to comply with Title IX.

Settlement Ends Litigation Over WVU Tech Softball Facilities

A federal court in West Virginia dismissed a Title IX case against the University of West Virginia Institute of Technology after it agreed to improve facilities for its women's softball team. The lawsuit was filed in 2008 by two softball players after WVU Tech ostensibly reneged on promised improvements. The parties had been trying to settle for a while.

According to the judge's decision endorsing the consent decree, WVU Tech hired a full-time head coach for the team, and has entered into an agreement with the local school district to use softball facilities at a nearby high school for the softball team's games and practices. Meanwhile, the university will pursue a long-term solution that provides for the renovation of the on-campus facility. Based on an initial feasibility study that was submitted to the court, the judge found that the "proposed renovations would afford the women's softball team suitable facilities."

The court maintains jurisdiction over the consent decree to ensure compliance.

Montana Adds Softball

A while ago, we mentioned University of Montana's plans to add women's softball. By way of update, here it's reported that the Regents have approved a plan to raise the student athletic fee (by $12.50 per year) thereby confirming the funding source for Montana's softball initiative. Student government also approved the fee increase, though leaders expressed reservation that the money be earmarked for Title IX compliance.

Adding softball was the right thing to do. Women make up 51.7% of the undergraduate population at Montana, but receive only 42.7% of the athletic opportunities, in a total of 6 sports. By my calculation, Montana would have to add 76 athletic opportunities for women to achieve proportionality. Softball is a start. It certainly improving their chances of demonstrating compliance with prong 3 in the meanwhile, as the decision satisfies to demonstrated unmet interested and ability.

West of the Mississippi...

Teams are being added and dropped, and schools are conference hopping.
Not sure if it's the conference hopping that is encouraging institutions to the get their houses in order in terms of Title IX compliance, but it is certainly having that effect.
The University of Montana has slightly-more-than tentative plans to add women's softball to their roster of intercollegiate sports. The state of Montana has no DI softball, which isn't especially surprising given the limitations the weather puts on spring sports, but recent survey data show that softball is the sport undergraduate women would like to see added. Though Montana administrators maintain that they didn't think they "were close to being out of compliance" they knew that they couldn't keep administering the annual interest survey and not do anything. (Not sure why they held that belief in the first place. Simply collecting data does not make one compliant.) Not sure if the NCAA held similar beliefs about Montana's compliance. In the university's last reaccreditation administrators were apparently told that adding another women's sport would be "the right thing to do." Montana is able, it seems, to read between the lines. And its plans to move to the Big Sky Conference likely pushed forward the plan for softball. The Big Sky needs one more softball-playing school in order to hold a conference tournament. But softball is still a ways off, at least three years according to the athletic director. The program is estimated to cost about half a million dollars annually so funds need to be raised, a coach hired, and players recruited.
A different conference hop is forcing another school to do the drop/add shuffle. University of Nebraska-Omaha, a DII school (except for men's hockey), is making the move to DI. It has been invited to the Summit League and given the NCAA's lifting of the ban on division hopping that will happen in June, and that conferences hold the power to invite, UNO has decided to make the leap, something they apparently have been considering for a while now. Not knowing when another such opportunity will come along, the university is making sure everything is in order for the 2012 move.
But unfortunately football and wrestling will not be coming along. The university cited the immense costs of football and the inability to bring wrestling up to DI levels without a large amount of cash as the reason for the cuts. Good news though for a couple of the so-called men's minor sports: UNO will be adding men's golf and soccer.

Montana goes with prong three

A piece out of a local news outlet in Missoula, Montana focuses on how the University of Montana is choosing to comply with prong three of Title IX. Montana's Senior Associate Athletic Director Jean Gee said Montana has vowed not to cut sports, but must address Title IX issues (in terms of opportunities offered) in other ways at a school where male students comprise 48 percent of the undergraduate population and male student-athletes received 59 percent of the athletic opportunities. So Montana regularly surveys and interviews its female students about their interests and abilities in various sports. And it's not just CYA stuff. Montana administrators realize that the popularity of softball at the high school level and the lack of a DI program at a state school means Montana will have to add softball to its roster soon.
According to the associate director of the state's high school athletic association, JoAnne Austin, athletic administrators in the state are required to have a working knowledge of Title IX which appears to lead to an overtly pro-Title IX stance.
Said Austin:
"For a lot of schools, big time schools, football is king. Football is what makes them the money and I really think that Title IX keeps them in check to some extent. And I think that if Title IX were to go away, you'd start to see a slide back, and more and more money and funds being funneled into football...where you would literally probably have football only schools."
Not sure if there would be football-only schools, but I do think there would be some significant backsliding.

Wilkes County Settles Title IX Complaint

Wilkes County, North Carolina, will improve the lighting and grading of its girls' softball fields by August 2012, and will create policies to improve girls' teams' access to the gym by Jan. 2011, according to the terms of a recent settlement agreement with the Department of Education. The settlement resolves a Title IX complaint filed a parent against the county school district in 2009, which triggered an investigation by the Department of Ed's Office for Civil Rights. According to the press, the parent who filed the complaint said of the settlement, "I know it states the school system is not admitting fault for not fixing things; however, these issues would not be an issue if they'd been taking care of business as they should be."

Softball Added at Weatherford College

A year-and-half ago, OCR launched an "inquiry" into Title IX compliance at Weatherford College in Texas, in response to gross disparity in athletic opportunities for male and female students. The inquiry produced an agreement that obligated the college to add sport if a survey of the female student body revealed sufficient interest. Last week, the college Trustees approved plans to address this disparity by adding a women's softball team, though it does not seem to be a survey that motivated the decision. According to the Athletic Director, Steven Garippa, softball was chosen because "the softball demographic in our area is phenomenal" and other factors such as "the availability and cost of facilities, the competition that is available immediately, the number of participants that can be involved and the interest in our service area" made softball the right choice. There is no mention of whether a survey was or will still be administered pursuant to the agreement. Perhaps the Trustees did not need a survey to reveal what it already knew about unmet interest in women's softball, and hopes that by adding the program now, any future surveys will demonstrate that women's interest is being met.

Softball facility improvement forthcoming in NC

It does not appear that we blogged about the complaint filed with OCR in 2009 out of Richmond County in North Carolina. But the allegations of disparities in the treatment of women's athletics, specifically softball, are currently being investigated. And Richmond Senior High School has promised to improve the facilities--to make them comparable to baseball's facilities.
This is not especially ground-breaking (well except when they actually break new ground on the new facility!). We have been blogging about softball facilities pretty much since we started this blog. And there has been great success in proving disparity by comparing the treatment of softball teams to baseball teams even though Title IX does not mandate such a one-to-one comparison. [Part of the complaint though alleges that the football team gets priority on the practice field.]
But I liked this particular article for a few reasons.
First, we got the list of facility issues: lights (which every other school has apparently), dugouts, locker room facilities, and concession stands.
Also we are reminded of another Title IX compliance issue that does not get a lot of attention: publicity. It appears that boys' games are advertised on a local radio station.
And finally, the Richmond County Daily Journal has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of the complaints from the school district and the Department of Education. Nice to see a newspaper making a concerted effort to get all the facts.

No Retaliation Remedy for Parochial School Teacher

Aado Kommendant was a teacher and girls' softball coach at St. John Vianney High School in New Jersey until the school decided in 2004 not to renew his contract. The school claimed that Kommendant was fired for appropriating school property and misusing funds, but the coach believed he was fired in retaliation for filing a Title IX complaint the Office for Civil Rights about inequitable treatment of the softball team. He sued the Diocese of Trenton, which operates the school, claiming that the school's decision was wrongful discharge under New Jersey common law. An appellate court recently affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Kommedant' suit against the school and its officials.

Because St. John Vianney High School is a private school that does not receive federal funds, it is outside the scope of Title IX. Therefore, the court reasoned, Kommendant's complaint to OCR about inequitable treatment of the girls' softball team is not entitled to protection from retaliation under NJ law. This reasoning highlights an important distinction between federal retaliation law, including that of Title IX, and comparable doctrines under state law. Under Title IX, an employee is protected from retaliation if employee reasonably believed that he was complaining about a violation of law. Under state law, at least in New Jersey, the employee only gets protection for complaining about actual violations of law. Whether Kommendant reasonably believed Title IX applied to St. John's or not, he is not protected under state law for complaining about Title IX violations.

I think that protecting employee's reasonable belief, as Title IX does, is superior to the state's more rigid approach. Employees will rarely be certain that their complaint addresses actual violations of law, and will likely be deterred by the threat of retaliation against speaking out against perceived violations of law.

Decision is: Kommendant v. Diocese of Trenton, 2010 WL 1526262 (Apr. 13, 2o1o, N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.)

Judge Holds Hawaii HS Softball Field Violates Title IX

Yesterday a federal district court judge in Hawaii ruled in favor of the girls' softball team at Baldwin High School, in Maui County, who had sued the county and the state board of education over the condition of the softball field. According to the press, the judge held that the "obvious disparity" in quality between the boys' baseball field, of "near semi-professional" quality, and the girls' softball field, which is not regulation size, a mile from campus, and dangerously strewn with rocks and stones, violated Title IX, and ordered the state and county to make improvements to the field where the softball team used to play before being relocated to the county-owned field.

While I applaud the decision for recognizing and ordering remediation for the disparate playing conditions, I don't understand why the judge has held the county partially responsible for ensuring equality between the fields. Hawaii has a statewide school district rather than local districts, so that explains why the state board of education is the educational institution on the hook for violations of Title IX. But it seems (from this article) that the board has made arrangements for softball to play on a county field rather than provide a field on school grounds. The board is surely liable for opting to use a county-owned softball field whose quality does not measure up to the baseball field, but this arrangement does not turn the county into an educational institution with an obligation to comply with Title IX. I'm guessing we haven't heard the last chapter in this case; most local governments are strapped for cash these days, so I think the county is likely to appeal.

Ohio School District Decides Location for Softball Field

Here is a brief update from Chillicothe, Ohio, where the school district has been struggling for months to resolve disparities in its facilities for softball and baseball. Last fall, the ACLU notified the school district via letter that the lack of a permanent softball facility was discrimination in likely violation of Title IX. In response, the district spent several months considering a variety of possible solutions, and recently announced its decision to construct a permanent softball facility on the site of one of its elementary schools in time for the 2011 season.

Now the district will have to figure out how to fund the project, which will likely cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article mentions that the softball team itself is fundraising and working to line up volunteers, which is commendable. From an equity standpoint, though, those efforts also raise the question of whether other teams must raise funds for the construction or operating costs of their facilities.

The location of the softball field -- 2 miles away from the high school, according to my research on Google maps -- also raises some equity questions. For reasons not explained by the article, the district did not consider a permanent softball field on the high school campus, where the baseball field is located. (The article only says that the board considered, but rejected, plans to put a temporary softball field there.) I wonder if the district is planning to provide transportation to the field. Assuming other teams do not have playing and practice facilities that are located off campus, it could be inequitable to the softball players if they are the only team to have to make their own arrangements to get to their practice and playing facility.

Point Loma Nazarene University Cuts Four Teams

Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego announced last week that this year would be the last for four of its sports teams: men's golf, men's track, men's cross country, and women's softball. PLNU reportedly explained the cuts as necessary to achieve compliance with Title IX.

This explanation seems to make softball the scapegoat for the cuts. For 29 years, the university had an arrangement with the city to use city land at Sunset Cliffs Natural Park for the team's former softball field. But the city voted in 2005 to return the land to its natural state as part of its master plan, causing the university to put its softball team off campus this year. No men's teams must play off campus, so an anonymous complaint filed with the Office for Civil Rights apparently alleged that this disparity constituted unequal treatment in violation of Title IX.

The complaint is believed to have triggered the university's decision to cut teams, as evidenced by students who believed that the complaint "backfired" on the women's softball team. "We’d rather play in unfair circumstances than have the team completely done away with," said one student quoted in the article linked above.

More likely, however, is that the university's decision was about more than just Title IX compliance questions regarding the softball field. I believe that PLNU could have gotten OCR to resolve the complaint by agreeing to make plans for a permanent softball facility in the future. OCR would have retained jurisdiction and followed up some years down the road to make sure that a facility was coming along. This kind of flexibility is typical of the softball field cases we follow on this blog. Moreover, OCR's public position is that cutting teams is a disfavored solution. I have never seen the agency encourage a university to cut teams as a way to achieve compliance.

Therefore, I don't think that PNLU's decision to cut teams was just about the softball complaint. I think it's more likely that the athletic department had overextended itself financially and needed to pare down athletic offerings to stay within its budget. Because the school's athletic offerings already disproportionately favored men (male students received 50% of the athletic opportunities while constituting 40% of the student body), Title IX necessarily factored into the decision of which teams to cut, as the law says cuts can't fall more heavily on whichever sex has fewer opportunities to start with. But this is not the same thing as saying Title IX caused the cuts in the first place.

We are used to seeing the Title IX blame-game when universities cut teams. But this time it seems particularly egregious as a particular team has become the scapegoat for the demise of four teams including its own. PLNU should take the responsibility for the cuts off of its softball players and offer a real explanation for why can't continue to fund all of its teams in an equitable and adequate manner.

Complaint against Lebanon temporarily suspended

A complaint brought anonymously against Lebanon High School in Oregon has been suspended for now while the school collects data on gender equity in its athletics department.
At issue in the original complaint filed in November 2009 was the facilities and benefits received by the baseball team versus the softball team. Part of the disparity is allegedly due to fundraising that occurs on behalf of the baseball team which, as many of us know, does not absolve a school from providing an equitable experience.
A self-assessment, though, will look at more than just baseball versus softball. It will be--hopefully--a comprehensive examination of the school's athletic department and the experiences and opportunities it provides to its student athletes.

1/11 Update: Here is a link to an article that gives the timeline and steps OCR is requiring of Lebanon in order to drop the complaint.

Slippery Rock settles--again

The gender equity case against Slippery Rock University that started in 2006 and was reopened last spring when some felt SRU was not meeting the settlement's requirements has settled again. The university has promised to improve the softball stadium, commit $300,000 more than in the original settlement toward improving women's athletics, and provide Title IX training for athletes, coaches, and administrators in the athletic department.
The re-settlement brings up a few interesting issues. First, SRU president Dr. Robert Smith said that it was easy to sign the settlement because everyone was working toward the same goal. But I have my doubts about the level of sincerity in this statement. He defended the poor quality of the new softball seating and the layout of said stadium which blocked certain views of the field for fans noting that he didn't think Title IX applied to the quality of the fans' experience. True. But fans in the stands affects the quality of the athletes' experience and nice facilities in which fans can see the entire field of play help get fans in the stands. There seems to be an underlying assumption that female athletes play purely for the love of the sport; that they could play in an empty stadium and still love the game. And maybe they could; but everyone likes fans. Additionally, the alleged inferior quality of the softball stadium, as compared to the baseball facilities, illustrates the argument plaintiffs used to reopen the case: that SRU remains a little weak in its commitment to gender equity. I don't know how administrators can claim they created a first-class facility when it does not equal the quality of its first-class baseball facility. Such a statement would seem to indicate that there are different standards for the men and women.
And second, Dr. Smith discussed the university's adherence to Title IX noting that they have been in compliance with prong one for two years. Women receive 56 percent of the athletic opportunities; a percentage equal to their representation in the undergraduate student body. While we applaud this change since the 2006 settlement, it provides a good opportunity to reiterate that Title IX compliance is not only about number of opportunities. An institution might meeting that one requirement of Title IX but failing miserably in providing things like quality coaching, quality competition, access to facilities, etc. While SRU does not appear to be failing miserably, we were pleased to see them sign this new settlement and recommit themselves to gender equity in their athletic department.