6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

1. K.S. and K.S., as parents and next friend )

of their minor daughter, C.S.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

1. EUFAULA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL )

DISTRICT N0.1, MCINTOSH COUNTY)

OKLAHOMA, a/k/a EUFAULA PUBLIC)

SCHOOLS;

)

)

2. BILL WILSON, in his official capacity )

as Superintendent of EUFAULA

)

PUBLIC SCHOOLS; and

)

)

3. DOES 1 through 50,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. CIV 0 7 - 0 4 3 - S P S
This action is not related to any previously filed case in this Court.

COMPLAINT

The above-captioned Plaintiffs, K.S. and K.S., as parents and next friend of their minor

daughter, C.S., ("Plaintiffs"), respectfully file this Complaint against Defendants, Eufaula

Independent School District No. 1, Mcintosh County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Eufaula Public Schools; Bill

Wilson, in his official capacity as Superintendent ofEufaula Public Schools; and Does 1 through 50;

("Defendants"), and allege as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This action is posed for declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants have violated

(1) Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. ("Title IX") and the

regulations adopted thereto, and (2) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983, by illegally denying Plaintiffs' daughter the

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 2 of 14
equal treatment and benefits that must necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate in athletics.
2. Defendants' denial ofequal treatment and benefits constitutes discrimination against the Plaintiffs' daughter based solely on her gender. Specifically, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs' daughter in the following areas: (1) funding of athletics; (2) scheduling of games and practice times; (3) provision oflocker rooms and facilities for both practice and competition; (4) training facilities and services; and (5) 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 Defendants have violated the Plaintiffs' daughter's rights under federal law. This action further seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to immediately cease their discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects oftheir discriminatory practices and to remedy the effects oftheir discriminatory conduct.
4. Plaintiffs seek injunctive reliefwhich, among other things, requires that Defendants provide Plaintiffs' daughter with treatment and benefits equivalent to that provided to the boys' athletic teams at Eufaula Public Schools.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Plaintiffs first claim arises under 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. and its interpreting regulations. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).
2

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 3 of 14
6. The Plaintiffs second claim arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).
7. Jurisdiction for declaratory and other relief is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 220l(a) and 2202.
8. Venue is properpursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Eufaula Public Schools serves the area in which Plaintiffs live in Mcintosh County Oklahoma, and thus Plaintiffs' claims arose in Mcintosh County, Oklahoma, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
THE PARTIES 9. Plaintiffs K.S. and K.S. are the parents ofC.S., a 16-year-old 101h grade student in Eufaula High School. C.S. is a talented athlete who participates in softball and golf. She has endured the unequal treatment and benefits directed by Eufaula Public Schools toward its female athletes. K.S., K.S. and C.S. are residents of Mcintosh County, Oklahoma, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Defendant Eufaula Independent School District No. 1, Mcintosh County Oklahoma, a!k/a Eufaula Public Schools, is a public school district authorized by Oklahoma law to operate and control Eufaula High School, where the Plaintiffs' daughter is a student. Therefore, Eufaula Public Schools' conduct is considered state action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant Eufaula Public Schools is located in Eufaula, Oklahoma in Mcintosh County, Oklahoma, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the passage of Title IX, Eufaula Public Schools has received and continues to receive federal financial assistance and the benefits therefrom. Therefore, all programs at Eufaula Public Schools, including athletics, are subject to the requirements of Title IX.
3

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 4 of 14
11. Defendant, Bill Wilson, is the Superintendent of Schools at Eufaula Public Schools. Bill Wilson is a resident ofthe State ofOklahoma and thus is subjectto the jurisdiction ofthis Court.
12. The named Plaintiffs are ignorant ofthe true names and capacities ofDoes 1-50, but believe them to be employees ofEufaula Public Schools or members ofthe Eufaula Public Schools Board of Education. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint to set forth their true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each ofthese fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the discriminatory actions alleged herein and that each is a resident ofthe State of Oklahoma and thus is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE IX 13. Title IX, enacted in 1972, 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. § 168l(a). 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. 20 U.S.C. § 1687. Thus, Eufaula Public Schools is subject to Title IX even if none of the funding for either its gids' or boys' athletic programs comes specifically from federal sources. 14. In 1975, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (the predecessor ofthe United States Department ofEducation ("DOE")) adopted regulations interpreting Title IX. These regulations are codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 106. (the "Regulations").
4

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 5 of 14
15. With regard to athletic programs, § 106.41(a) of 34 C.F.R. 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 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 ... 16. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41 (c) specifies ten (1 0) 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 ofboth 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 be considered is a school's "failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex." !d.
5

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 6 of 14
17. In 1979, the office of Civil Rights ofthe Department ofEducation ("OCR") issued a policy interpretation ofTitle IX and tlte Regulations. This policy interpretation is found at 44 Fed. Reg. 71413 (1979) (the "Policy Interpretation").
18. 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 ofscholarships (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. 44 Fed. Reg. at 71414. 1
19. According to the Policy Interpretation, compliance in the area of equivalent participation opportunities is to be determined by the following three-part test:
(1) whether interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletic participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
(2) where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or
1Although the Policy Interpretation refers to "intercollegiate" sports, it is applicable to all recipients of federal education funds, including high schools, and is, thus, applicable to
interscholastic high school sports as well as intercollegiate sports. 34 C.F.R. § 106.11. See also,
44 Fed. Reg. at 71413 which provides that the Policy Interpretation's "general principles will often apply to ... interscholastic athletic programs which are also covered by the Regulations."
6

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 7 of 14
(3) where the members of one sex are underrepresented among interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics and the institution cannot show a continuing practice ofprogram expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. See 44 Fed. Reg. at 71418.
20. 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 (1 0) of 34 C.F.R. § 106.41 (c) listed above and an analysis of whether the necessary funds are provided for teams of both sexes.
21. The Regulations require that sponsors of interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics (such as Eufaula Public 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(a). On information and belief, any remedial actions which Eufaula Public Schools has taken in the past have been insufficient to satisfy Eufaula Public Schools' obligations under Title IX.
22. The Regulations further require that sponsors of interscholastic and other schoolsponsored athletics comply with the Regulations within three years oftheir effective date (which was July 21, 1975). Now, more than thirty-one (31) years later, Eufaula Public Schools has still not fully complied with Title IX.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 23. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a state shall not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
7

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 8 of 14
24. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants may be held liable for their actions in violating Plaintiffs' daughter's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive reliefto end Defendants' unequal, discriminatory, and unlawful treatment of female student athletes. Because of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs' daughter continues to be deprived of the rights guaranteed to her by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States. Failure to grant the injunctive relief requested will result in irreparable harm to Plaintiffs' daughter in that Plaintiffs' daughter's rights will be violated and that Plaintiffs' daughter will never be able to participate in interscholastic and/or other schoolsponsored athletics on an equal basis with her male classmates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law for this harm. This threatened harm far outweighs any possible harm that granting injunctive reliefmight cause Defendants. Finally, the injunctive relief sought would in no way disserve the public interest but, on the contrary, would prevent discrimination based on gender and would promote the goal of full equality before the law.
ATTORNEYS' FEES 26. Plaintiffs have been required to retain the undersigned attorneys to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: TITLE IX (Unequal Treatment and Benefits)
(Aeainst Eufaula Public Schools Only) 27. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference paragraphs 1 through 26 inclusive of this Complaint.
8

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 9 of 14
28. Eufaula Public Schools, by its conduct, has violated Title IX by discriminating against female students, including the Plaintitis' daughter, by failing to provide them with treatment and benefits which are comparable overall to the treatment and benefits provided to male athletes.
29. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Eufaula Public Schools has failed to comply with Title IX by failing to provide their daughter with comparable treatment and benefits including, but not limited to, the following areas:
(1) Eufaula Public Schools funds athletics in a manner that discriminates against Plaintiffs' daughter and other female athletes.
(2) Eufaula Public Schools unfairly discriminates against Plaintiffs' daughter and other female athletes in the scheduling ofpractices and games. For example, the football, basketball and baseball programs have scheduled athletic periods. The softball program does not have a scheduled athletic period. The baseball field is located on school property. As a result, the baseball team has exclusive use of its field. The softball field is located on city property. The softball team must share use of its field with city and church teams. The city has preferential use of the field. Thus, not only does the softball team not have the exclusive use of its field as the baseball teams enjoys, it does not even have preferential use of its field. As a result, some home games have been cancelled and most of the softball team's games are played away, due to these scheduling problems. In addition, the softball program is not allowed to schedule games on the dates that football has a scrimmage or game. Ifany softball game date or time conflicts with a football game or scrimmage date,
9

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 10 of 14
that game has to be rescheduled or cancelled. Because many softball tournaments begin on Friday, the opportunity to play in those events in particular is limited by this policy. (3) Eufaula Public Schools supplies superior locker rooms, practice facilities and competition facilities to boys as compared to girls. For example, softball players do not have access to a locker room. Baseball players do have such access adjacent to their field. Softball players change in their cars or in the tractor barn at the field. The baseball program is provided with a superior field as compared to softbalL The baseball field is located on school property, while the softball field is on city property. The baseball field has painted cinder block dugouts. The softball field has smaller, inferior, chainlink dugouts. The baseball field has an enclosed press box. The softball field has no press box. The baseball field has bleachers. The softball field has no bleachers. The baseball field has a scoreboard. The softball field has no scoreboard. The baseball field is enclosed so that the school can maintain the field and the program can take a gate. The softball field is not enclosed, making it impossible to maintain the field or to take a gate. The baseball field has an outfield fence. The softball field has no outfield fence. (4) Eufaula Public Schools unfairly discriminates against the Plaintiffs' daughter and girls' athletic teams as compared to boys' athletic teams in the provision of training faci1ities and services. For example, male athletes are provided superior access to appropriate weight-training facilities and equipment as
10

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 11 of 14
compared to female athletes, including plaintiffs' daughter and the other softball players. (5) Eufaula Public Schools provides less publicity for its female athletic teams than for its male athletic teams. For example, a pep rally is held prior to football games. No pep rally is provided for softball. 30. The imbalance in the treatment offemale and male athletes at Eufaula Public Schools, as detailed above, demonstrates Eufaula Public Schools' failure to comply with Title IX. 31. Eufaula Public Schools' conduct has persisted despite the mandates of the Regulations, particularly 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.3(a) and 106.41(d), and the Policy Interpretation. 32. Eufaula Public 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. SECOND CLAIM Ji"'OR RELIEF: EQUAL PROTECTION
(A&ainst All Defendants) 33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this reference paragraphs 1 through 32 inclusive of this Complaint. 34. Defendants, by their failure to provide Plaintiffs' daughter with equivalent treatment and benefits as the male athletes (as detailed above), have illegally discriminated against Plaintiffs' daughter and other female students on the basis of gender, and have illegally deprived them oftheir rights to equal protection secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 35. Defendants have illegally failed and refused to remedy the unequal treatment and benefits received by Plaintiffs' daughter and other female athletes as compared to male athletes at
11

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 12 of 14
Eufaula Public Schools. Therefore, Defendants' actions constitute an illegal disregard for Plaintiffs' daughter's constitutional rights.
36. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides, in part: Every person who, under color ofany statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen ofthe United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ...
37. When Defendants engaged in the improper actions described above, they were acting under color oflaw for purposes ofthe Equal Protection Clause ofthe United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under this section, the Defendants are liable for their violations ofthe Plaintiffs' daughter's constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, on each of their claims, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: A. Enter an order declaring that Defendants have engaged in a past and continuing pattern and practice ofdiscrimination against female students, including Plaintiffs' daughter, on the basis of gender in violation of Title IX and the regulations promulgated thereunder (including unequal treatment and benefits), and the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
12

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 13 of 14
B. Issue a permanent injunction (a) restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, successors and any other persons acting in concert with them, from continuing to maintain practices and policies ofdiscrimination against Plaintiffs' daughter on the basis ofgender, and (b) requiring Defendants, immediately upon issuance of the injunctive order, to adopt and implement a budget and plan which corrects and remediates Defendants' violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment. 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.
C. Grant an expedited hearing and ruling on the permanent injunction request in paragraph B above.
D. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuantto U.S.C. § 1988. E. Order such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. F. Designate that the trial take place before the U. S. District Court in Muskogee, Oklahoma.
Dated: ;2- ~- o7
Respectfully submitted,
Tennessee Attorney Registration #02181 0 Suite 200, 4113 Cumby Road Cookeville, TN 38501 Telephone: (931) 528-5050 Fax: (931) 528-5051 Email: sjs@schillerlawfirn1.com
13

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 2 Filed in ED/OK on 02/09/07 Page 14 of 14

~/L-j YY .ER

{rJd

Oklahoma Bar Association #009944

3120 East 4th Place

Tuls~ OK 74104

Telephone: (918) 631-2442

Fax: (918) 631-2194

Email: raymond-yasser@utulsa.edu

Attorneysfor Plaintiffs

C:\tm\Title IX\Eufaula\Pleadings\2007-0208 Complaint. wpd

14

 
 6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

1. K.S. and K.S., as parents and next friend )

oftheir minor daughter, C.S.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

1. Eufaula Independent School District No. )

1, Mcintosh County, Oklahoma, a/kla

)

Eufaula Public Schools; and

)

)

2. Bill Wilson, in his official capacity as

)

Superintendent of Eufaula Public

)

Schools; and

)

)

3. Does 1 through 50,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. CIV -07-043-SPS

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

The Defendants, Eufaula Independent School District No. I, Mcintosh County, Oklahoma ("School District"), and Bill Wilson ("Superintendent"), collectively referred to as "Defendants", for Answer to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, K.S. and K.S., as parents and next friend of their minor daughter, C.S., allege and state:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. In answer to paragraph one of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs' action is for declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants deny thatthey have violated Title IX or its implementing regulations and also deny allegations that they have denied Plaintiffs' daughter equal treatment and benefits that must necessarily accompany an equal opportunity to participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics.

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 2 of 8

2. In answer to paragraph two of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants deny that they deprived C.S. of equal treatment and benefits or that they have engaged in gender discrimination against Plaintiffs' daughter. Likewise, the remaining allegations in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs'

Complaint are denied. 3. In answer to paragraph three of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants admit that
Plaintiffs seek to redress the alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs' daughter's rights and that Plaintiffs

seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. 4. In answer to paragraph four of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants admit that

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief; the remaining allegations of paragraph four are denied.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph five of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

6. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph six of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

7. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph seven of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

8.

Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph seven of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

THE PARTIES

9. In answer to paragraph nine of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants admit that to the best of their knowledge, K.S. and K.S. are the parents of C.S. Defendants deny that C.S. has endured unequal treatment and benefits directed by Defendants toward its female athletes. Defendants admit that to the best of their knowledge, the Plaintiffs are residents of Mcintosh County, Oklahoma, and further admit that, as residents of Mcintosh County, are within the

jurisdiction of this Court. I0. In answer to paragraph ten of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants admit that

Eufaula ISD No. I of Mcintosh County, Oklahoma is a public school district authorized by

2

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 3 of 8
Oklahoma law to operate and control Eufaula Public Schools, that Eufaula Public School District is located in Eufaula, Oklahoma, and that Eufaula is within this judicial district. Furthermore, Eufaula School District admits that it has received and continues to receive federal financial assistance. Defendant School District admits that it issubject to the requirements of Title IX and that C.S. is a student enrolled in Eufaula Public Schools.
11. In answer to paragraph eleven of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant Bill Wilson admits that he is the Superintendent of Schools at Eufaula Public Schools. Superintendent further admits that he is a resident of the State of Oklahoma and subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Wilson is sued only in his official capacity, as superintendent of Eufaula Public Schools.
12. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph twelve of Plaintiffs' complaint.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE IX 13. Paragraph thirteen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a statement of Title IX and requires no answer of Defendants. The Eufaula School District acknowledges that it is subject to Title IX. 14. Paragraph fourteen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a statement regarding the regulations interpreting Title IX and requires no answer of Defendants. 15. Paragraph fifteen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a statement of§ 106.41(a) of 34 C.F.R. and requires no answer of Defendants. 16. Paragraph sixteen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a statement of34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) and requires no answer of Defendants. 17. Paragraph seventeen of Plaintiffs' Complaint references the Office of Civil Rights
3

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 4 of 8
of the Department of Education's policy interpretation of Title IX and related regulations. It requires no answer of Defendants.
18. Paragraph eighteen of Plaintiffs' Complaint and related footnote 1 is a statement of requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 106.4l(c) and requires no answer of Defendants.
19. Paragraph nineteen of Plaintiffs' Complaint, is a recitation of the requirements of the Policy Interpretation with respect to the three part test for equivalent participation opportunities and requires no answer of Defendants.
20. Paragraph twenty of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a characterization of the regulations and policy interpretation regarding Title IX compliance concerning equal treatment and benefits. It requires no answer of Defendants.
21. In answer to paragraph twenty-one of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants admit, that the School District is required to take such remedial actions as are necessary to overcome the effect of gender discrimination, when found in violation of Title IX. Defendants deny that they have failed to take the required remedial action necessary to place the School District in compliance with Title IX.
22. In answer to paragraph twenty-two of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants admit that time lines for compliance are a part of Title IX and its Regulations. Defendant denies Plaintiffs' allegation that it has failed to comply with Title IX.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 23. Paragraph twenty-three of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a statement of the Fourteenth Amendment and requires no answer of Defendants. 24. Paragraph twenty-four of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a characterization of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requires no answer of Defendants.
4

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 5 of 8

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-five of Plaintiffs'

Complaint.

ATTORNEYS' FEES 26. In answer to paragraph twenty-six of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs were required to retain legal counsel in order to present their claims to the Defendants. Plaintiffs had ample opportunity in accordance with the District's policies and practices to approach the School District's Director of Athletics, Superintendent and/or Board of Education members and, on information and belief, failed to do so with respect to specific claims presented in this lawsuit or simply ignored direct knowledge of the School District's planning for new

softball and baseball fields. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: TITLE IX (Unequal Treatment and Benefits) 27. In answer to paragraph twenty-seven of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants adopt
and re-allege its admissions and denials made in connection with paragraphs one through twenty-

six above. 28.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-eight of Plaintiffs'

Complaint. 29.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-nine and related

sub-parts of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 30. Defendants deny the allegations contained m paragraph thirty of Plaintiffs'

Complaint. 31.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-one of Plaintiffs'

Complaint.

5

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 6 of 8

32. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-two of Plaintiffs'

Complaint. 33.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: EQUAL PROTECTION
(All Defendants)
In answer to paragraph thirty-three of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants adopt and

re-allege its admissions and denials made in connection with paragraphs one through thirty-two

above. 34.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-four of Plaintiffs'

Complaint. 35.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-five of Plaintiffs'

Complaint. 36.

Paragraph thirty-six of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a statement of Section 1983 and

requires no answer of Defendants. 37. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-seven of Plaintiffs'

Complaint.

REQUESTED RELIEF

38. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested with respect to parts A, B, and C of this section of their Complaint. Specifically, Defendants deny that an order should issue declaring that the School District has engaged in a past and continuing pattern and practice of discrimination based on students' gender. Defendants respectfully note that Plaintiffs have filed their Complaint on behalf of one student and not on behalf of all female students.
39. Likewise, the School District denies that a permanent injunction is appropriate or required or that an expedited hearing is necessary. Defendants also deny that Plaintiffs should be

6

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 7 of 8
awarded attorneys' fees and costs or that other relief, not specifically denominated by Plaintiffs, 1s proper.
40. Defendants specifically deny each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint except those allegations specifically admitted herein.
41. The Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiffs' Complaint except those allegations specifically admitted.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, Defendants urge that Plaintiffs take nothing by this Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES By way of affirmative defenses, the Eufaula School District and Superintendent state as follows: 42. The School District's program of school sponsored sports is managed and administered in a nondiscriminatory manner and no unlawful or material disparities, attributable to gender discrimination, exist between its softball and baseball programs. 43. The School District provides equipment, supplies, and uniforms for male and female athletes, including C. S., in a nondiscriminatory and gender-neutral manner. 44. Locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities are allocated in a nondiscriminatory manner based on the teams and activities which must draw upon available facilities and the particular sport's competitive schedule. 45. There is an absence of any indication of intentional discrimination on the part of the School District or its Superintendent. 46. There is no policy, custom, or practice of the School District which results in disparate treatment of C.S. as compared with their male counterparts and Plaintiffs have failed to
7

6:07-cv-00043-SPS Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 03/19/07 Page 8 of 8
plead facts sufficient to support § 1983 liability.
47. Neither the School District nor Superintendent have actual notice or knowledge of
gender inequity in connection with the School District's program of school sponsored sports
generally, or specifically involving its baseball and softball offerings.
48. The minimum requirements for injnnctive relief have not been satisfied by
Plaintiffs.
49. Other affirmative defenses may be identified as this litigation proceeds and
Defendants reserve the right to add affirmative defenses as the lawsuit proceeds.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andrea Kunkel Andrea Kunkel, OBA #11896 ROSENSTEIN, FIST & RINGOLD 525 S. Main, Suite 700 Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 585-9211 (918) 583-5617 fax ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
[8:1 I hereby certify that on the I9'h of March, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached
document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants:
Samuel J. Schiller, OBA #021810 4113 Cumby Road, Suite 200 Cookeville, TN 3850 I sjs@schillerlawfirm.com
Ray Yasser, OBA #069944 3120 E. 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104 Raymond- yasser@utulsa.edu
s/Andrea Kunkel Andrea Kunkel
8

 
 Case: 6:07-cv-00043-SPS As of: 02/11/2014 02:12 PM CST 1 of 4
CLOSED,ADMINCLOSE,LC−2,SPS
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:07−cv−00043−SPS

Kevin Singleton et al v. McIntosh County School District No. 1 et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/09/2007 Date Terminated: 03/26/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kevin Singleton as parent and next friend of minor daughter, C.S.

represented by Raymond L. Yasser University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 E Fourth Pl Tulsa, OK 74104 918−631−2442 Fax: 918−631−2194 Email: raymond−yasser@utulsa.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel J. Schiller Schiller Law Firm 4113 Cumby Rd, Ste 200 Cookeville, TN 38501 931−528−5050 Fax: 931−528−5051 Email: sjs@schillerlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katherine Singleton as parent and next friend of minor daughter, C.S.

represented by Raymond L. Yasser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel J. Schiller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
McIntosh County School District No. 1 sued as Eufaula Independent School District No. 1, McIntosh County Oklahoma also known as Eufaula Public Schools

represented by Andrea R. Kunkel Rosenstein Fist &Ringold 525 S Main St, Ste 700 Tulsa, OK 74103−4500 918−585−9211 Fax: 918−583−5617 Email: andreak@rfrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen L. Long Rosenstein Fist &Ringold 525 S Main St, Ste 700 Tulsa, OK 74103−4500 918−585−9211 Fax: 918−583−5617

Case: 6:07-cv-00043-SPS As of: 02/11/2014 02:12 PM CST 2 of 4

Email: karenl@rfrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bill Wilson in his official capacity as Superintendent of Eufaula Public Schools

represented by Andrea R. Kunkel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen L. Long (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Does 1 through 50

Date Filed 02/09/2007 02/09/2007
02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/12/2007
02/12/2007 02/13/2007 02/28/2007

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Kevin Singleton and Katherine Singleton (pjw, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/13/2007 to correct filer names (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
2 COMPLAINT against Bill Wilson, Does 1 through 50, McIntosh County School District No. 1 by Kevin Singleton and Katherine Singleton (pjw, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/13/2007 to correct filer names (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Samuel J. Schiller on behalf of Kevin Singleton and Katherine Singleton (pjw, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/13/2007 to correct filer names (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Raymond L. Yasser on behalf of Kevin Singleton and Katherine Singleton (pjw, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/13/2007 to correct filer names (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
5 MOTION and Brief in Support to File Reference List Under Seal by Kevin Singleton and Katherine Singleton (pjw, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/13/2007 to correct filer names (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
6 FILING FEES Paid in Full by Kevin Singleton and Katherine Singleton (pjw, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/13/2007 to correct filer names (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
***Remark: Consent form provided to Plaintiffs (pjw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
7 PRAECIPE and issuance of 2 summons by Kevin Singleton and Katherine Singleton (tah, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/13/2007 to correct filer names (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
8 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder, GRANTING 5 Plaintiffs' Motion and Brief in Support to File Their Reference List Under Seal to the extent that only the name of the minor child should be sealed. Future pleadings should refer to the full name of the parents. (tah, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
9 SEALED Reference List (tah, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/12/2007 to add sealed PDF (tah, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
DEPOSIT of Funds (CD #28) made on 2/13/07, in the amount of $350.00 (smg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
10 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder, setting hearing: Scheduling Conference is set for 4/13/2007 at 10:00 AM in Chambers, Room 425, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Mag. Judge Steven P. Shreder. (tah, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2007)

Case: 6:07-cv-00043-SPS As of: 02/11/2014 02:12 PM CST 3 of 4

03/19/2007 04/04/2007 04/09/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007
04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007
10/26/2007 10/26/2007 10/26/2007 10/26/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
11/07/2007

11 ANSWER to Complaint (Re: 2 Complaint) by Bill Wilson, McIntosh County School District No. 1 (Kunkel, Andrea) Modified on 3/20/2007 to delete filer Does 1 through 50 (pjw, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 03/19/2007)
12 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Karen L. Long on behalf of Bill Wilson, McIntosh County School District No. 1 (Long, Karen) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
13 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Kevin Singleton, Katherine Singleton (Schiller, Samuel) Modified on 4/10/2007 to add joint filers; McIntosh County School District No. 1 and Bill Wilson (nsb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/09/2007)
14 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder: STRIKING the Scheduling Conference set 4/13/07 at 10:00 A.M. Scheduling Order to follow. (tah, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
15 SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder, SETTING scheduling order date(s): The parties may refer to the court's official website at: www.oked.uscourts.gov to obtain pretrial instructions and pretrial order form. Discovery due by 11/26/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 12/10/2007. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 1/4/2008. Pretrial Conference is set for 1/11/2008 at 10:00 AM in Chambers, Room 425, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Mag. Judge Steven P. Shreder. Jury Trial is set for 1/22/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Mag. Judge Steven P. Shreder. (tah, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
16 NOTICE of Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate by Kevin Singleton, Katherine Singleton (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
17 NOTICE of Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate by Bill Wilson, McIntosh County School District No. 1 (Long, Karen) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
18 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder: Settlement Conference set for 12/4/2007 at 09:30 AM in Chambers, Room 430, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Mag. Judge Kimberly E. West. Settlement Conference Statements due 11/20/07. (sjw, Chambers) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
19 WITNESS LIST by Bill Wilson, McIntosh County School District No. 1 (Long, Karen) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
20 EXHIBIT LIST by Bill Wilson, McIntosh County School District No. 1 (Long, Karen) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
21 WITNESS LIST by Kevin Singleton, Katherine Singleton (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
22 EXHIBIT LIST by Kevin Singleton, Katherine Singleton (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
23 Joint MOTION to Extend Deadline(s) /Amend Scheduling Order by Bill Wilson, Kevin Singleton, Katherine Singleton, McIntosh County School District No. 1 Responses due by 11/21/2007,Replies due by 12/3/2007.(Long, Karen) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
24 ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder: Parties' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Docket No. 23 ) is GRANTED. Discovery due by 2/25/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 3/10/2008. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 4/4/2008. Pretrial Conference set for 4/11/2008 at 12:00 PM in Chambers, Room 425, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder. Jury Trial set for 4/21/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder.(tah, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
25 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West: The Settlement Conference is RESET for 3/10/2008 at 09:00 AM in Chambers, Room 430, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Mag. Judge Kimberly E. West. Settlement Conference Statements are due 2/25/08.(sjw, Chambers) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

Case: 6:07-cv-00043-SPS As of: 02/11/2014 02:12 PM CST 4 of 4

03/07/2008 03/07/2008
03/25/2008
03/26/2008 03/26/2008 04/21/2008

26 ORAL MOTION of Plaintiff to Continue Settlement Conference with no objection of Defendant. (sjw, Chambers) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
27 MINUTE ORDER by Mag. Judge Kimberly E. West: granting 26 Oral Motion to Continue Settlement Conference. The Settlement Conference is RESET for 3/25/2008 at 09:00 AM in Chambers, Room 430, US Courthouse, 5th &Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Mag. Judge Kimberly E. West. (sjw, Chambers) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
28 MINUTES of Proceedings − Settlement Conference held on 3/25/2008 before Mag. Judge Kimberly E. West: Plaintiffs Kevin and Katherine Singleton were present with counsel Raymond Yasser and Samuel Schiller. Defendants Dian Dawson, School Board Rep., and Dan Edwards, Superintendent, were present, along with Alta Evans, Insurance Rep. and were represented by counsel Karen Long. Conference concluded WITH settlement. (sjw, Chambers) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
29 JUDGMENT DISMISSING ACTION BY REASON OF SETTLEMENT by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder, (terminates case). (tah, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
***Civil Case Terminated (see document number 29 ) (tah, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
30 STIPULATION of Dismissal, closing case, by Bill Wilson, Does 1 through 50, Kevin Singleton, Katherine Singleton, McIntosh County School District No. 1 (Schiller, Samuel) (Entered: 04/21/2008)