Clinton v. Nagy
411 F. Supp. 1396 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government regulation that categorically excludes females from participating in city-sponsored contact sports, without regard to individual qualifications and abilities, lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose and is likely unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Brenda Clinton, a twelve-year-old girl, expressed her desire to play football for the 97th Street Bulldogs, a team in the city-licensed Cleveland Browns Muny Football Association.
- Her mother, Johnnie Clinton, and the team's coach, William Thomas, both supported her participation.
- On September 28, 1974, Mrs. Clinton signed the Medical Service Agreement required of all players, and Brenda prepared to play.
- On that date and on subsequent game days, league official Charles Hall informed Brenda she was not permitted to play solely because she was a female.
- At the request of another official, Mrs. Clinton signed a special liability waiver not required of male players' parents, with the understanding it would allow Brenda to play.
- Despite the waiver, on October 18, 1974, Mrs. Clinton was informed that Brenda still could not play because a rule prohibited females in contact sports.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Brenda Clinton, through her mother, filed an action in the United States District Court against the Mayor of Cleveland and various city recreation officials.
- The complaint sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction to prevent defendants from excluding her from a youth football league.
- The court held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order on November 1, 1974.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city regulation that categorically excludes females from participating in a city-sponsored contact sport, like football, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to an individual female who is otherwise qualified to play?
Opinions:
Majority - Lambros, District Judge
Yes, such a regulation likely violates the Equal Protection Clause. A classification based on sex is subject to scrutiny and must bear a rational relationship to a valid state purpose. The defendants' asserted purpose of protecting the safety and welfare of females, based on generalized physical differences between boys and girls, is insufficient to justify a blanket prohibition that ignores an individual's actual qualifications. The proper focus is on the individual plaintiff, Brenda Clinton, and the defendants failed to present any evidence that she personally lacked the physical ability to play or was more susceptible to injury than the male players. Denying a qualified individual the opportunity to participate in an activity that develops character and leadership solely based on sex causes irreparable harm.
Analysis:
This decision represents an early application of equal protection principles to sex-based discrimination in community athletics, particularly in contact sports. It is significant for rejecting broad, stereotype-based justifications for exclusionary rules in favor of an individualized assessment of ability. By framing the denial of opportunity as 'irreparable harm,' the court elevated the importance of equal access to activities that build character and leadership. This case helped establish a legal precedent for challenging paternalistic rules that limit opportunities for girls and women in sports, paving the way for future litigation under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
