Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Posts Tagged ‘Third Circuit’

Ballers & Shot Callers: Court Says Female Basketball Referee May Pursue Sex Discrimination Case Alleging She Was Excluded From Officiating Boys’ Games

by HDlawblog Posted: Friday, 4/26/2013

Several weeks ago, in the case of Covington v. Int’l Ass’n of Approved Basketball Officials, the Third Circuit held that a female high school basketball referee in New Jersey may pursue a Title VII sex discrimination claim against three defendants related to her alleged exclusion from officiating boys’ basketball games.

In short, the female referee sued seven defendants in federal court, including Hamilton Township School District, the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA), and Board 193 of the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, alleging that the defendants engaged in unlawful sex discrimination by excluding her from officiating boys’ high school varsity basketball games. Although she had refereed for more than 10 years, the referee claimed that she had not been assigned to officiate boys’ regular season games because of Board 193’s policy of discriminating against female officials. Although no defendant admitted to having a policy of excluding women from officiating boys’ games, the referee alleged a pattern and practice of sex discrimination

The U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey dismissed the referee’s complaint on the ground that she had not adequately alleged facts sufficient to establish the employer-employee relationship necessary to hold any of the named defendants liable under Title VII. The referee appealed this dismissal to the Third Circuit where the Third Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and chastised it for not giving more serious regard to a federal district court opinion in Pennsylvania that had upheld a sex discrimination jury verdict for a female basketball referee who had been excluded from officiating boys’ games under similar circumstances. In other words, there was existing case law that the lower court should have paid closer attention to.

Interestingly, the defendants unsuccessfully argued that they were not covered by Title VII on the theory that they could not be considered employers. The Third Circuit rejected this argument finding that the school district and the athletic association could be fairly identified as the referee’s employers under Title VII. The court also found that the referee plausibly alleged that Board 193 could be liable as an “employment agency” for supplying high school basketball referees to the school district.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Tags: Basketball, Board 193 of the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, employment agency, Hamilton Township School District, Harmon & Davies, New Jersey, New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association, School District, Sex Discrimination, Shannon O. Young, Shannon Young, Third Circuit, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Posted in Labor & Employment, Sex discrimination | No Comments »

Appellate Court Says Four Black Female Carpenters May Proceed with Sex Bias and Retaliation Claims against Carpenters & Joiners Union

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 2/18/2013

In the case of Butt v. Carpenters & Joiners of Am., the Third Circuit recently held that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania wrongly dismissed the claims of four black female carpenters who claimed that the Carpenters and Joiners of America discriminated and retaliated against them in making job referrals.

The four female carpenters asserted sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and race discrimination claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 against the union, its business manager, and its business agent. The plaintiffs also asserted Title VII and Section 1981 retaliation claims and at least one of the plaintiffs asserted race and sex bias claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The Third Circuit found that the lower court failed to properly consider certain factual issues and therefore the dismissal was improper. One of the key facts had to do with the union’s agent allegedly telling one of the plaintiffs that “his people” were still out of work when she inquired about work. The plaintiff interpreted the phrase “his people” to mean white men. The lower court interpreted this statement to mean that the union’s agent did not identify with black female carpenters. However, the plaintiff’s interpretation of the comment was the only interpretation that the appellate court could find on the record. Thus, the appellate court found that the comment was enough to create a factual issue for trial on the discrimination claims.

As for the retaliation claims, the lower court took too narrow of a view of retaliation by focusing on retaliatory actions that resulted in a clear change in employment status. According to the appellate court, the lower could should have also considered acts meant to keep workers from making discrimination complaints. Here, the plaintiffs claimed that their reduction in hours was in retaliation for their direct complaints to the union, their EEOC discrimination charge against the union and their testimony before a Philadelphia advisory commission. After two of the plaintiffs testified before the commission, the union’s agent sent the media a letter stating that two women had been laid off in the past because of poor performance. Although the record contained little information about the letter that was sent to the press, the appellate court held that such action arguably could have sufficed as retaliatory action under the law and therefore the letter raised an issue of fact for trial.