dbo:abstract
|
- Sally Frank sued the three all-male eating clubs at Princeton University in 1978 for denying her on the basis of her gender. Over ten years later, in 1990 the eating clubs were defined as "public accommodation" and court ordered to become co-ed thanks to Sally Frank, her attorney Nadine Taub and the of Rutgers Law School. The eating clubs argued that they were completely private and separate from the university, giving them the right to sex discrimination. After many rounds in the courts, this argument eventually failed. The winning argument stated that the clubs were in fact not separate, and instead functioned as an arm of the university itself. This meant that the clubs were in the end covered by New Jersey's anti-discrimination law and forced to admit women. Throughout the legal process, the clubs pushed back hard. In the 1980s the clubs sold shirts featuring a picture of Frank's face, given a mustache and the slogan "Better Dead Than Coed." Ultimately, Cottage Club decided to become coed in 1986, but both Ivy Club and Tiger Inn continued to appeal the decision, even after the final court order in 1990. The appeal went all the way to the US Supreme Court but was unsuccessful in changing the decision. (en)
|
dbo:education
| |
dbo:employer
| |
dbo:occupation
| |
dbo:wikiPageID
| |
dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 15124 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
dbp:education
|
- MA, Clinical Legal Education Antioch University
JD, New York University School of Law
AB, Princeton University (en)
|
dbp:employer
| |
dbp:knownFor
|
- Suing Princeton eating clubs to become co-ed (en)
|
dbp:movement
| |
dbp:name
| |
dbp:occupation
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:comment
|
- Sally Frank sued the three all-male eating clubs at Princeton University in 1978 for denying her on the basis of her gender. Over ten years later, in 1990 the eating clubs were defined as "public accommodation" and court ordered to become co-ed thanks to Sally Frank, her attorney Nadine Taub and the of Rutgers Law School. The eating clubs argued that they were completely private and separate from the university, giving them the right to sex discrimination. After many rounds in the courts, this argument eventually failed. The winning argument stated that the clubs were in fact not separate, and instead functioned as an arm of the university itself. This meant that the clubs were in the end covered by New Jersey's anti-discrimination law and forced to admit women. (en)
|
rdfs:label
| |
owl:sameAs
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
foaf:name
| |
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |