Suit over girls team schedules to start

September 24, 2001

BY ERIK LORDS
FREE PRESS EDUCATION WRITER

One of the state's most closely watched lawsuits -- one that could dramatically change the way high school athletics are scheduled in Michigan -- will go to trial today in U.S. District Court in Kalamazoo after three years of legal wrangling.

The trial had been scheduled to begin in March and then on Aug. 13 before being rescheduled yet again.

The major issue in the gender-equity suit is whether the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA), the governing body for prep sports, discriminates against female athletes by having girls compete in nontraditional seasons.

In Michigan, for example, girls basketball teams play in the fall and boys in the winter; girls volleyball teams play in the winter, not the fall as in most states.

Michigan is the only state other than Hawaii that uses the nontraditional season format for girls basketball, for example. South Dakota, when faced with a similar legal challenge, aligned its seasons, and North Dakota made the switch before a lawsuit was filed.

The federal class-action suit was filed in Michigan in 1998 by Communities for Equity, a group of parents of high school athletes.

Their suit argues that the scheduling hurts female athletes by limiting their exposure to college recruiters, among other things. In addition to basketball and volleyball, they want the seasons changed for golf, soccer, swimming and tennis.

The suit also claims MHSAA discriminates by providing more opportunities for boys to participate in sports, by operating shorter seasons for girls, by scheduling girls to compete on less-desirable dates and by allocating more resources for boys athletic programs.

It also claims the association provides inferior athletic facilities for girls tournaments.

William Azkoul, a lawyer for MHSAA, did not return telephone calls seeking comment during the weekend.

Jack Roberts, executive director of MHSAA, a private, nonprofit group based in Lansing, has disputed the contention that the organization discriminates against girls. He has said administrators at the majority of the association's 1,300 member schools and dozens of female athletes have asked that the seasons not be changed, largely because more girls can participate with staggered seasons. The administrators say scheduling fields and courts for events would be difficult if boys and girls sports were concurrent, Roberts has said.

MHSAA officials said they are optimistic about winning the case largely because, based on recent court rulings, the plaintiffs must prove the association intentionally discriminated against female athletes. That tougher standard did not exist when the lawsuit was filed, according to the officials.

But H. Rhett Pinsky, a lawyer for the parents group, said intent to cause harm or discriminate is not the issue, but that MHSAA must have justification for any unequal treatment -- such as the kind created by nontraditional scheduling.

"The plaintiffs are saying that where there is unequal treatment, the defendants have to justify it," Pinsky said, adding that MHSAA and its members "don't have a justification for treating boys and girls sports differently."

U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen is to hear opening arguments this morning. The trial is expected to take two weeks.