Women's Sports in Jeopardy?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Jul 13, 2020 | 0 Comments

We take for granted that most sports are all female or all male. On average, men are stronger, faster, and more powerful than women. Segregating sports by sex has helped women come closer to equality and parity in athletics. But a recent Supreme Court opinion brings the legality sex-segregated sports into question.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court tackled Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination "because of sex." See 590 U.S. ___ (2020) (slip op.). In the Bostock case, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII also prohibits discrimination against transgender employees. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Title VII only refers to biological sex, not gender identity or transgender status. But the court held that discrimination based on gender identity is a type of "sex discrimination" prohibited by Title VII because one can only determine a person's status as transgender in relation to that person's biological sex at birth.

The Bostock decision is a landmark victory for transgender people and the LGBTQ+ community. But some critics worry that extension of the ruling will upset hard-won equality for women and girls in the worlds of high school and college athletics.

Will Bostock apply to women's athletics?

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded K-12 schools and colleges and universities. It became law as part of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. It states:

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.

In part, Title IX prohibits discrimination in hiring and admissions, as well as athletics in federally funded schools, giving female athletes the right to equal opportunities in sports. According to the World Economic Forum, girls' participation in high school sports increased by 990% since 1972. Women's participation in college sports increased by 545%. Since its passage in 1972, Title IX has dramatically increased women's and girls' participation in sports in K-12 schools and colleges.

Writing for The Hill, opinion contributor Jennifer C. Braceras argues that the Bostock case will extend to Title IX cases. No court has ever ruled that having sex-segregated sporting activities is discriminatory under Title IX. However, the author worries that the Supreme Court's recent ruling will tie school administrators' hands if a male student fails to make the men's team and then tries out for the women's team, performing well.

Braceras argues that the Bostock ruling now means that the coach can only deny a male student a spot on the team by considering his sex. She states, "[…] just as an employer cannot fire a transgender employee without considering that employee's biological sex, neither can a school separate the sexes in athletic competition without considering the sex of the participants." While it may be a leap from a transgender employee's discriminatory firing to a cis man trying out for a women's soccer team, the consequences of the Bostock decision will undoubtedly change how we define sex discrimination, gender, and gender identity for years to come.

If you or a loved one face a Title IX sex discrimination investigation or issue, our team could help. Contact attorney Joseph D. Lento and the Lento Law Firm at 888-535-3686, or online.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Attorney Lento and his team represent students and others in disciplinary cases and various other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Attorney Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he and his team have sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address any school-related issue or concern anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.