Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

This post is a follow up to an earlier post that addressed one of our bloggers surprise that pregnant women were excluded from playing softball in any league affiliated with Slo-Pitch National.

After doing some follow up research into the issue we have a few more tidbits of information that are worth sharing.

1. The following softball associations in Canada do allow women to compete while pregnant: Softball Canada, Slo-Pitch Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Women's Softball Association (which is a fastball association only). If you are a pregnant woman that wants to play, or any woman in fact, consider these leagues.

This is by no means a complete listing of affiliations in Canada that do allow pregnant women to play. If you are aware of others that do not have "no pregnant women policies" feel free to pass along the information and we will add it to the post.

2. The above mentioned leagues also have insurance policies that cover pregnant women in the event of injury. We thus assume that it would be possible for SPN to get this insurance.

3. Interestingly, the BC Human Rights Tribunal, in the case of Duxury v. Gibsons Landing Slo-Pitch League, held that the league's policy that prevented women from playing was discriminatory and that there was no reasonable bona fide justification for the discriminatory rule. Interestingly, the league was also an SPN affiliated entity but the claimant (unfortunately) failed to name SPN or its insurance company as parties.

It is important to note that this case is dated, and out of BC so it is unclear whether a same result would occur in 2011 in Ontario. But interesting none the less.

Excerpt from Duxbury v. Gibsons Landing Slo-Pitch League [1997] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 30, paras. 35-37.


35 I can not, however, accept that an appropriate solution to the risk of litigation is to purchase insurance for some members that has the effect of excluding others on a prohibited ground unless there is no reasonable alternative. Ms. Lumsden testified that they looked into other insurance options. They considered joining softball B.C. [which is affiliated with Softball Canada mentioned above] but the cost was prohibitive. There is no other evidence on the relative costs of insurance. In this case, the evidence of the cost of non-discriminatory alternatives is too vague for me to conclude that there is no reasonable alternative to joining Slo-Pitch National for its insurance coverage.

36 The Respondent should be able to obtain liability insurance if it wishes to do so for bona fide reasons. Such coverage should include pregnant women, not exclude them as in this case. If the Respondent chooses discriminatory insurance then it or the insurance provider will need more compelling evidence than I have heard to demonstrate that such a discriminatory policy is reasonably justified.

37 I have concluded that the rule which prohibits pregnant women from playing in the Respondent's league is prima facie discriminatory. I have also concluded that there is not a bona fide and reasonable justification for that rule. Accordingly, I find that the complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex is justified.

Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

• Softball
• Sports
• SportsPLUS
• Discrimination/Title IX
• Sexism

View Original Post at womeninsportinternational.blogspot.com

View WISIBlog's Full Profile