Homophobic Chants During Soccer Match Do Not Lead to Liability at Chicago's Soldier Field
If you're attending a sporting event and are subject to vulgar and offensive chants directed at you and your friends, you'd hope that the venue has a code of conduct to protect against such behavior. Even if it does, there's no guarantee it will apply to your experience. So the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled on the final day of 2024.
As usual, it's the details that matter. Let's take a look at what prompted the ruling.
A Slur in Any Language
The lawsuit was filed against the Chicago Park District (CPK) and Soldier Field's Management Company (SMG) in 2021 (amended in 2023). Four men alleged that the defendants violated the Illinois Human Rights Act by denying them the full and equal enjoyment of the 2019 Gold Cup Final Soccer Match.
The match occurred on July 19th, 2019, between the U.S. Men's National Soccer Team (USMNT) and the Mexico Men's National Soccer Team at Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois. The plaintiffs, three of whom are gay, had experienced being the target of a homophobic chant from Mexico soccer fans at previous matches in different venues. The chant used a vulgar slur for a male sex worker.
According to the filing, one of the plaintiffs sent emails to the CPK, who owns Soldier Field, and SMG, who manages the events at Soldier Field and is responsible for security through a subcontractor. The plaintiffs planned on attending the match at Soldier Field. The email detailed the previous instances involving the chant, which has been a recurring issue with fans supporting Mexico.
The email requested that the defendants take steps to prevent or stop the chanting. While the CPK argued that they never received the email, SMG admitted they did. It was distributed to SMG senior managers and outside counsel, but there was no ensuing modification to SMG's match day procedures.
On match day, the plaintiffs wore USMNT Pride jerseys with rainbow-colored numbers. This allowed them to be identified as members of the LGBTQ+ community. They were targeted with the offensive chant once the match began.
One of the plaintiffs texted a request for help to the fan security number posted on the venue's website, but SMG had posted an incorrect number, and the message wasn't received. The plaintiffs alleged that they felt unsafe for the duration of the match and altered their behavior due to fear, such as only leaving their seats in pairs.
The plaintiffs claimed to have spoken with either an usher or security officer at halftime but couldn't recall the person's name. This made it impossible to prove their concerns had been ignored. While the plaintiffs weren't physically assaulted, they alleged they were the subject of the chant 28 times and stayed long after the match ended to avoid any possible confrontations.
Code of Duty
The Code of Conduct for Soldier Field establishes that "profane, disruptive, or abusive language or gestures"are grounds for ejection from the stadium and perhaps even criminal charges. Under that policy, it's not unreasonable to expect that a homophobic slur being repeatedly chanted would qualify as a means for action. So why did the plaintiffs lose?
To establish a prima facie public accommodation case, the plaintiffs attempted to show the following:
- They were members of a protected class
- They attempted to exercise the right to the full benefits and enjoyment of a place of public accommodation
- They were denied those benefits and enjoyment
- They were treated less favorably than similarly situated persons outside of their protected class
While there was no argument over the first two showings, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins ruled that the plaintiffs didn't meet the burden of proof for their final two allegations. There was agreement that the plaintiffs had been denied some security services, but it failed because it called for the creation of other security services.
The court also didn't accept their argument that they were treated less favorably because the defendants would have enforced the Code of Conduct differently if the chant had been racist instead of homophobic. This claim, considered hypothetical and not proven by the plaintiffs, was not enough to keep the judge from ruling for the defendants.
Extra Time
It's unknown at this time if the plaintiffs will pursue further legal action. The chant continued to be an issue independent of the legal proceedings, including the temporary suspension of a match in Texas in March of 2024. The Mexican soccer federation has switched from defending the chant as inoffensive to trying to get the nation's fans to stop using it. Time will tell if they're successful.
Related Resources
- Illinois Human Rights Act (FindLaw's State Codes)
- Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech? (FindLaw and the First Amendment)
- Can I Sue for Being Kicked Out of a Concert? (FindLaw's Filing a Lawsuit)
