1 / 12

Gender Discrimination Case: Fuhr v. Hazel Park School District

In the case of Fuhr v. the School District of the City of Hazel Park, Sarah Fuhr claimed gender discrimination when she was not hired as the boy’s varsity basketball coach, despite her extensive experience as a girls' coach. The court found in Fuhr's favor, awarding her $455,000 in damages after determining that the hiring process, which included only male committee members and complaints about hiring a female coach for a male team, was discriminatory. This case highlights significant issues related to Title VII and Title IX protections against sex discrimination in education and employment.

brosh
Télécharger la présentation

Gender Discrimination Case: Fuhr v. Hazel Park School District

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sex Discrimination Sarah Bell Pages 268-272

  2. Fuhr v. School District of the City of Hazel Park • Did not hire woman to coach boy’s varsity basketball • Court of Appeals, sixth circuit • Hired John Barnett- boys freshman coach- 2 yrs. • Fuhr • Girls varsity basketball coach- 10 yrs. • Boys jv and assistant varsity coach- 8 yrs.

  3. Basketball Coach and Athletic Director • Boy’s varsity coach and athletic director retired in same year (both supported Fuhr) • Barnett and Fuhr only two who applied for basketball coach position • Only men on committee (neither coach or director invited)

  4. Testimony • Previous Coach- district athletic director did not want him to participate • District a.d. denies that received any formal endorsement

  5. Interview • Superintendent made final decision • Fuhr interviewed second • Superintendent left during interview and never returned • Community members expressed complaints about Fuhr coaching two varsity sports in succession • Superintendent had to comply with school board members- board president backed story • Stated- concerned about female being boy’s head basketball coach

  6. Filing suit • Requested compensatory, punitive damages, and lost wages • Decision- Fuhr’s favor • $245,000- present damages • $210,000- future damages • Name Fuhr boy’s varsity basketball coach • Denied Hazel Park’s request for new trial

  7. Ultimate question • Relevance- not about increase in pay over female position, but over jv position? • Fuhr presented evidence of gender issues • President of school board testified about concern of female coach male team • Principal confirmed to Fuhr after hiring Barnett

  8. Notes • Title VII and Title IX different • Title VII • Sexual harassment on the job • Title IX • Prohibits unequal treatment with respect to “conditions of employment” • Courts construed “conditions” to include insulting and degrading

  9. Clark County School District v. Breeden • Male supervisor read comment from psychological report of job applicant • Applicant had once told a coworker “I hear making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon” • Did not understand and another said he was explain it later-both men chuckled • Female administrator present and filed complaint

  10. Court Decision • “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.’”

  11. Grove City College v. Bell (1984) • Title IX does not apply to private institutions as a whole • Only portions that receive federal funding • Program specific • Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 • Designed to overturn Grove City College • If one part of entity receives federal funds, whole entity covered

More Related