Appeals court affirms that cheering is not a sport
Legal Events
A federal appeals court has ruled that colleges cannot count competitive cheerleading as a sport when trying to comply with gender-equity requirements, upholding a U.S. District Court decision against Quinnipiac University.
In a decision released Tuesday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that competitive cheerleading does not yet meet the standards of a varsity sport under Title IX, the 1972 federal law that mandates equal opportunities for men and women in education and athletics.
The ruling comes on an appeal filed by Quinnipiac, a school with about 8,000 students in Hamden, which had been successfully sued by its volleyball coach after it tried to eliminate the women's volleyball program in favor of competitive cheering.
"Like the district court, we acknowledge record evidence showing that competitive cheerleading can be physically challenging, requiring competitors to possess 'strength, agility, and grace,' the court wrote. "Similarly, we do not foreclose the possibility that the activity, with better organization and defined rules, might someday warrant recognition as a varsity sport. But, like the district court, we conclude that the record evidence shows that 'that time has not yet arrived.'"
The appeals court agreed with U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill, who found in 2010 that competitive cheerleading did not have the organization, post-season structure or standardized rules required to be considered a varsity sport.
Related listings
-
Court spurns religious claim to name change
Legal Events 08/02/2012An appeals court has rejected a Kansas man's claim that the federal justice system's refusal to recognize his new Muslim name violates his constitutional religious rights. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Michael White failed...
-
Goldman agrees to settle mortgage debt class action
Legal Events 07/20/2012Goldman Sachs Group Inc has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit with investors who claimed losses on $698 million of securities backed by risky mortgage loans issued by defunct subprime lender New Century Financial Corp. Lawyers for the investors...
-
Fed court reverses order for VA system overhaul
Legal Events 05/07/2012A federal appeals court on Monday reversed its demand that the Veterans Affairs Department dramatically overhaul its mental health care system. A special 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that any such changes need to be or...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.