Mountain Brook BOE Lawsuit

Case 2:18-cv-00923-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 20 FILED
2018 Jun-15 PM 02:46

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jacqueline Pratt Austin-Trucks and )

Christopher Smith Cole, as parents,)
and next friends of their minor )
daughter, J.C., )
) Case No.:
Plaintiffs, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
v. )
)
Mountain Brook Board of Education, )
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPLAINT
COME NOW Plaintiffs Jacqueline Pratt Austin-Trucks and Christopher
Smith Cole, as parents and next friends of their minor daughter, J.C. (“Plaintiffs”),
and respectfully file this Complaint against Defendant Mountain Brook Board of
Education, a/k/a Mountain Brook Schools and allege the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. (“Title
IX”) and the corresponding regulations by illegally and intentionally denying the
Case 2:18-cv-00923-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 20
Plaintiffs’ daughter the equal treatment and benefits that must necessarily
accompany an equal opportunity to participate in athletics.
2. The Defendant’s denial of equal treatment and benefits constitutes
intentional discrimination against the Plaintiffs’ daughter based solely on her
gender. Specifically, the Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiffs’
daughter in the following areas: (1) funding of athletics; (2) provision of
equipment and supplies; (3) scheduling of games and practice times; (4) travel; (5)
assignment of coaches; (6) provision of locker rooms and facilities for both
practice and competition; (7) provision of training or medical facilities and
services; and (8) provision of publicity.
3. This action seeks to redress the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’
daughter’s rights to receive the equal treatment and benefits which must
necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and
other school-sponsored athletics. This action seeks a declaratory judgment that the
Defendant has violated the Plaintiffs’ daughter’s rights under federal law. This
action further seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to immediately cease its
discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects of its discriminatory practices.
4. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief which, among other things,
requires the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs’ daughter with treatment and
2
benefits equivalent to those provided to boys participating in interscholastic
athletics at Mountain Brook Schools.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The Plaintiffs’ first claim arises under 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq., and
its interpreting regulations. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677
(1979). Jurisdiction is conferred on this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).
6. Jurisdiction for the Plaintiffs’ second claim for declaratory judgment
and other relief is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.
7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28
U.S.C. § 81(a). These claims arose in Mountain Brook, Jefferson County,
Alabama which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
THE PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Jacqueline Pratt Austin-Trucks is the mother of J.C., a
sixteen (16) year old, a rising junior at Mountain Brook High School. J.C.
participates in varsity girls’ softball at Mountain Brook High School and has
endured the unequal treatment and benefits directed by Mountain Brook Schools
toward its female athletes. Jacqueline Pratt Austin-Trucks is over the age of
3
nineteen (19) years old and is a resident of Mountain Brook, Jefferson County,
Alabama, which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
9. Plaintiff Christopher Smith Cole is the father of J.C., a sixteen (16)
year old, a rising junior at Mountain Brook High School. J.C. participates in
varsity girls’ softball at Mountain Brook High School and has endured the unequal
treatment and benefits directed by Mountain Brook Schools toward its female
athletes. Christopher Smith Cole is over the age of nineteen (19) years old and is a
resident of Mountain Brook, Jefferson County, Alabama, which is within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
10. Defendant Mountain Brook Board of Education a/k/a Mountain Brook
Schools is a public school district authorized by Alabama law to operate and
control Mountain Brook High School, where the Plaintiffs’ daughter plays varsity
girls’ softball. Mountain Brook Schools is located in Mountain Brook, Jefferson
County, Alabama, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
this lawsuit occurred in Jefferson County, Alabama, which is within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Since the passage of Title IX, Mountain
Brook Schools has received and continues to receive federal financial assistance
and the benefits. Therefore, all programs at Mountain Brook Schools, including
athletics, are subject to the requirements of Title IX.
4
ALLEGATIONS
I. THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE IX
11. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et
seq., provides in relevant part: “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.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
12. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 made Congress’ intent plain
that “program or activity,” as used in Title IX, applies to any program or activity so
long as any part of the public institution receives federal financial assistance. See
20 U.S.C. § 1687. Thus, Mountain Brook Schools is subject to Title IX even if
none of the funding for either its girls’ or boys’ athletic programs comes
specifically from federal sources.
13. In 1975, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (the
predecessor Cabinet-level department to the United States Department of
Education) adopted regulations interpreting Title IX. See 34 C.F.R. Part 106 (the
“Regulations”).
14. With regard to athletic programs, 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a) provides that
interscholastic athletics are included within the “program or activity” requirements
of Title IX: “No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation
5
in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or
otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or
intramural athletics offered by a recipient[.]”
15. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) specifies ten (10) factors that are to be
considered in the determination of equal athletic opportunity:
1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition
effectively accommodate the interest and abilities of members of both sexes;
2. The provision of equipment and supplies;
3. Scheduling of games and practice time;
4. Travel and per diem allowance;
5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; [and]
10. Publicity.
Another factor to consider is a school’s “failure to provide necessary funds for
teams for one sex.” Id.
16. In December 1979, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of
Education issued a policy interpretation of Title IX and the Regulations. This
6
policy interpretation is found at 44 Fed. Reg. 71413 (1979) (the “Policy
Interpretation”).
17. The Policy Interpretation provides that, in order to comply with Title
IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c), schools must provide equal athletic opportunities in
three general areas: (1) awarding of scholarships (aimed primarily at problems at
the intercollegiate level); (2) participation opportunities (including both the number
of opportunities and whether the selection of sports and the level of competition
effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes); and
(3) treatment and benefits. See 44 Fed. Reg. 71413, 71414 (1979).
18. Under both the Regulations and the Policy Interpretation, compliance
in the area of equal treatment and benefits is assessed based on an overall
comparison of the male and female athletic programs, including an analysis of
factors (2) through (10) of 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) listed supra and an analysis of
whether the necessary funds are provided for teams of both sexes.
19. The Regulations require that sponsors of interscholastic and other
school-sponsored athletics (such as Mountain Brook Schools) take such remedial
actions as are necessary to overcome the effects of gender discrimination in
violation of Title IX. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(c).
20. The Regulations further require that sponsors of interscholastic and
other school-sponsored athletics comply with the Regulations within three (3)
7
years of their effective date on July 21, 1975. See 45 C.F.R. § 86.41(d); 40 Fed.
Reg. 24128 (Jun. 4, 1975); 40 Fed. Reg. 39506 (Aug. 28, 1975). Now, almost
forty-three (43) years later, the Defendant still has not fully complied with Title IX.
II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
21. The Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to end Mountain Brook
Schools’ unequal, discriminatory, and unlawful treatment of their daughter J.C., a
female student athlete. Because of Mountain Brook Schools’ acts and omissions,
the Plaintiffs’ daughter continues to be deprived of the rights guaranteed to her by
the laws of the United States.
22. Failure to grant the requested injunctive relief will result in irreparable
harm to the Plaintiffs’ daughter in that her rights will be violated and she will not
be able to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics on an
equal basis with her male classmates. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs do not have an
adequate remedy at law to relieve this harm.
23. This threatened harm to the Plaintiffs’ daughter, and other female
student athletes, far outweighs any possible harm that granting injunctive relief
might cause Mountain Brook Schools. Finally, the injunctive relief sought would
in no way disserve the public interest and, on the contrary, would prevent
discrimination based on gender and would promote the goal of full equality before
the law.
8
III. FACTS
24. The Plaintiffs allege that Mountain Brook Schools has failed to
comply with Title IX by not providing the Plaintiffs’ daughter with comparable
treatment and benefits to her male classmates participating in boys’ interscholastic
athletics at Mountain Brook Schools.
25. Generally, Mountain Brook Schools provides more outside funding to
boys’ athletics than to girls’ athletics in a manner that discriminates against female
athletes.
26. Mountain Brook Schools funds girls’ softball in a manner that
discriminates against Plaintiffs’ daughter and other female athletes. Mountain
Brook Schools supports and distributes more outside funding for boys’ baseball as
compared with girls’ softball.
27. Mountain Brook Schools funds varsity, junior varsity, and freshman
teams for boys’ baseball, whereas there is only a varsity team for girls’ softball.
28. Mountain Brook Schools provides male athletes with requisite
equipment and supplies in a manner that discriminates against Plaintiff’s daughter
and other female athletes. For example, the girls’ softball team is required to pay
for some of their essential equipment and supplies, such as helmets, masks, bats,
and gloves.
9
29. Mountain Brook Schools discriminates against the Plaintiffs’ daughter
and other female athletes by providing boys’ baseball with matching, properly
fitting uniforms for practices and games, whereas the girls’ softball uniforms for
practices and games are mismatched or ill-fitting.
30. Mountain Brook Schools girls’ softball is classified as a 7A Area 6
program by the Alabama High School Athletic Association.
and other female athletes in the scheduling of games. In the 2018 season,
Mountain Brook Schools girls’ softball played twenty-six (26) games and lost
twenty-three (23) games. Fourteen (14) of Mountain Brook girls’ softball games
ended due to the application of the “mercy rule.” The team finished near last place
among all 7A high school girls’ softball teams in Alabama. In the 2018 season,
Mountain Brook Schools boys’ baseball team played thirty-six (36) games and
won their area. Additionally, in the 2018 season, Mountain Brook Schools
scheduled games out of state for boys’ baseball, but did not schedule out of state
games for girls’ softball.
32. In 2018, the Mountain Brook Schools girls’ softball team played
significantly fewer games than two (2) other teams in 7A Area 6. Oak Mountain
High School girls’ softball played forty-five (45) games and Spain Park High
School girls’ softball played fifty-two (52) games. Other 7A girls’ softball teams
10
also played significantly more games than Mountain Brook Schools girls’ softball.
Hewitt-Trussville High School girls’ softball played fifty-six (56) games.
Thompson High School girls’ softball played fifty-five (55) games. Vestavia Hills
High School girls’ softball played fifty-five (55) games.
and other female athletes by providing boys’ baseball with organized, regularly
scheduled, and lengthier practices compared with girls’ softball practices which are
unorganized (and occasionally unsupervised for periods of time), irregularly
scheduled, and shorter in length.
and other female athletes in the provision of travel. Mountain Brook Schools
provides boys’ baseball with transportation to and from some games, but does not
provide transportation for the girls’ softball team to or from any games.
and other female athletes in the provision of coaching. Mountain Brook Schools
assigns one (1) head coach and two (2) assistant coaches to girls’ softball and
assigns one (1) head coach and six (6) assistant coaches to boys’ baseball.
36. Following the 2018 season, the coach of Mountain Brook Schools
varsity girls’ softball resigned. At the time of filing the instant Complaint,
Mountain Brook Schools has not hired a replacement coach for girls’ softball.
11
37. Mountain Brook Schools discriminates against female athletes by
providing boys’ baseball with a superior off-season conditioning program and
providing girls’ softball with an inferior off-season conditioning program.
and other female athletes in the provision of facilities. The locker room for girls’
softball lacks restrooms and running water and is furnished with aged metal
lockers and industrial tile flooring, whereas Mountain Brook Schools provides
boys’ baseball with a locker room featuring restrooms, wooden lockers, and
carpeting. In order for members of the girls’ softball team to use the restroom,
they must visit the public restroom near the concession area.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12
Boys’ baseball locker room.1 Girls’ softball locker room.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2
39. The home team dugout for girls’ softball is markedly inferior to the
home team dugout Mountain Brook Schools provides to boys’ baseball.
40. Spectator seating for girls’ softball consists of portable metal
bleachers, whereas Mountain Brook Schools provides boys’ baseball with
permanent stadium seating.
41. Mountain Brooks Schools provides boys’ baseball with a dedicated
field and discriminates against Plaintiffs’ daughter and other female athletes by
1
This photo has been redacted to remove any names of student-athletes visible on lockers or
jerseys.
13
failing to provide girls’ softball with a dedicated field. Girls’ softball plays their
games at a municipal recreation field to which they only have shared access with
other teams.
42. Male athletes at Mountain Brook Schools are provided with access to
superior, appropriate weight training facilities and weight training equipment as
compared with girls’ softball.
43. Mountain Brook Schools provides boys’ baseball with a concession
stand and an enclosed, air-conditioned pressbox for its games. Girls’ softball does
not have a dedicated concession stand and has an unenclosed, unairconditioned
press box for its games.
Boys’ baseball pressbox. Girls’ softball pressbox.

Fig. 3 Fig. 4
14
44. Mountain Brook Schools provides boys’ baseball with a nine (9)
inning scoreboard. Girls’ softball does not have a dedicated, comparable
scoreboard.
45. Mountain Brook Schools provides boys’ baseball with several
bullpens in which pitchers can warm up. Girls’ softball does not have any pitching
lanes in which the team’s pitchers can warm up.
Boys’ baseball has bullpens. Girls’ softball does not have bullpens.
Fig. 5 Fig. 6
46. Mountain Brook Schools discriminates against Plaintiffs’ daughter
and other female athletes in the provision of medical or training services. Training
or medical services are not consistently provided to girls’ softball players before
practice, after practice, before games, during games, or after games.
15
47. Mountain Brook Schools discriminates against Plaintiffs’ daughter
and other female athletes in the provision of publicity. For example, Mountain
Brook Schools consistently provides less publicity for its girls’ softball program as
compared with its boys’ baseball program.
48. Boys’ baseball at Mountain Brook High School has the team’s games
recorded, girls’ softball does not.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
49. In order to prosecute the causes of action alleged herein, the Plaintiffs
retained the undersigned attorneys to litigate the claims in this case. The Plaintiffs
are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT ONE
TITLE IX (Unequal Treatment and Benefits)
(Against Mountain Brook Board of Education)
50. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
51. Mountain Brook Schools, by its conduct, has intentionally violated
Title IX by knowingly and deliberately discriminating against Plaintiffs’ daughter,
and other female athletes, by failing to provide them with treatment and benefits
which are comparable overall to the treatment and benefits provided to male
athletes.
16
52. The imbalance in the treatment of female and male athletes at
Mountain Brook Schools, as detailed herein, demonstrates Mountain Brook
Schools’ intentional and conscious failure to comply with Title IX.
53. Mountain Brook Schools’ conduct has persisted despite the mandates
of the Regulations, particularly 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.3(c) and 106.41(d), and the
Policy Interpretation.
54. Mountain Brook Schools’ conduct violates 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.,
as interpreted by 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.31 and 106.41 and the Policy Interpretation
thereof.
COUNT TWO
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202)
(Against Mountain Brook Board of Education)
55. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference each and every
allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
56. This Court should declare and adjudge that Mountain Brook Schools
discriminates on the basis of sex in the manner in which it sponsors, funds, and
administers its baseball and softball programs, in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et
seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder. Further, Mountain Brook Schools
should be ordered to cease such sex discrimination.
17
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this
Honorable Court enter an Order:
A. Declaring that Mountain Brook Schools engaged in a past and
continuing policies and practices of discriminating against female student-athletes,
including the Plaintiffs’ daughter, on the basis of gender in violation of Title IX
and the regulations promulgated thereunder (including unequal treatment and
benefits).
B. Issuing a permanent injunction (a) restraining Mountain Brook
Schools and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and any other persons
acting in concert with them, from continuing to maintain policies and practices that
discriminate against the Plaintiffs’ daughter on the basis of gender, and (b)
requiring Mountain Brook Schools, immediately upon issuance of the injunctive
order, to adopt and implement a budget and plan which correct and remediate its
violations of Title IX. Such a plan should include, among other things, providing
Plaintiffs’ daughter and other female athletes with treatment and benefits
comparable to those provided to male athletes at Mountain Brook Schools.
C. Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1988.
D. Granting such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems
18
appropriate, including but not limited to such damages as are available pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand trial by a struck jury.
Dated: June 15, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anil A. Mujumdar

Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M)
One of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
OF COUNSEL:
Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z)
Denise Wiginton (ASB-5905-D27W)
Paul H. Rand (ASB-5595-O99N)
ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE - TRIAL LAWYERS
2332 2nd Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
T: 205.983.7985
F: 888.505.0523
E: anil@zarzaur.com / gregory@zarzaur.com / denise@zarzaur.com /
paul@zarzaur.com
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
PLAINTIFF WILL SERVE THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANT WITH

THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY PERSONAL PROCESS SERVER:
Mountain Brook Board of Education

32 Vine Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35213
T: 205.871.4608
Defendant
20

Mountain Brook BOE Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mountain Brook BOE Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:18-cv-00923-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 20 FILED

2018 Jun-15 PM 02:46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Jacqueline Pratt Austin-Trucks and )

COME NOW Plaintiffs Jacqueline Pratt Austin-Trucks and Christopher

Education, a/k/a Mountain Brook Schools and allege the following:

1. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. (“Title

accompany an equal opportunity to participate in athletics.

2. The Defendant’s denial of equal treatment and benefits constitutes

intentional discrimination against the Plaintiffs’ daughter based solely on her

gender. Specifically, the Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiffs’

daughter in the following areas: (1) funding of athletics; (2) provision of

practice and competition; (7) provision of training or medical facilities and

services; and (8) provision of publicity.

3. This action seeks to redress the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’

necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and

discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects of its discriminatory practices.

4. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief which, among other things,

benefits equivalent to those provided to boys participating in interscholastic

athletics at Mountain Brook Schools.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

its interpreting regulations. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677

(1979). Jurisdiction is conferred on this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).

6. Jurisdiction for the Plaintiffs’ second claim for declaratory judgment

and other relief is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.

District of Alabama, Southern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 81(a). These claims arose in Mountain Brook, Jefferson County,

Alabama which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

8. Plaintiff Jacqueline Pratt Austin-Trucks is the mother of J.C., a

Alabama, which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

9. Plaintiff Christopher Smith Cole is the father of J.C., a sixteen (16)

resident of Mountain Brook, Jefferson County, Alabama, which is within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

10. Defendant Mountain Brook Board of Education a/k/a Mountain Brook

Schools is a public school district authorized by Alabama law to operate and

girls’ softball. Mountain Brook Schools is located in Mountain Brook, Jefferson

this lawsuit occurred in Jefferson County, Alabama, which is within the

athletics, are subject to the requirements of Title IX.

I. THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE IX

11. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et

to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal

financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

20 U.S.C. § 1687. Thus, Mountain Brook Schools is subject to Title IX even if

specifically from federal sources.

13. In 1975, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (the

predecessor Cabinet-level department to the United States Department of

14. With regard to athletic programs, 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a) provides that

interscholastic athletics are included within the “program or activity” requirements

otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or

intramural athletics offered by a recipient[.]”

15. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) specifies ten (10) factors that are to be

considered in the determination of equal athletic opportunity:

1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition

effectively accommodate the interest and abilities of members of both sexes;

2. The provision of equipment and supplies;

3. Scheduling of games and practice time;

4. Travel and per diem allowance;

5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;

6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;

7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;

8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;