## Facts

- Jacqueline Garrett (also known as Jackie Tonawanda) applied to the New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC) for a professional boxing license.
- NYSAC denied the application solely because Garrett was a woman, relying on a regulation categorically barring women from being licensed as boxers.
- The denial was not based on any individualized assessment of Garrett’s skill, fitness, medical condition, or character.
- NYSAC defended the categorical exclusion by asserting (1) boxing’s public image as a “manly” sport would be harmed by women’s participation and (2) women would face special health risks, including potential injury to reproductive organs and breasts.
- Garrett brought an Article 78 proceeding seeking to compel nondiscriminatory consideration for licensure; NYSAC moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether NYSAC’s categorical rule denying professional boxing licenses to women, solely on the basis of sex, violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York Constitutions.
2. Whether NYSAC’s asserted interests in preserving boxing’s traditional image and protecting women’s health justified a blanket sex-based exclusion from licensure.
3. Whether NYSAC’s enabling authority to regulate boxing for safety and the public interest permitted a categorical sex-based bar, rather than individualized regulation.

## Decision

- The court denied NYSAC’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that the regulation categorically barring women from boxing licenses was invalid under the state and federal Equal Protection Clauses.
- The court rejected “manly sport” image preservation as an improper basis for excluding women from a lawful occupation.
- The court found the health-and-safety justification insufficient to support a blanket ban, particularly absent adequate evidentiary support and where safety could be addressed through nondiscriminatory regulation.
- The court granted Article 78 relief requiring that Garrett be considered for licensure without categorical exclusion based on sex.

## Legal Principles

- A state licensing authority may not impose a categorical occupational exclusion based solely on sex where the justification rests on stereotypes or generalized assumptions about women as a class.
- Preserving a traditional, gendered public image of an activity is not a constitutionally sufficient governmental interest to support sex-based discrimination in licensing.
- Generalized safety concerns do not justify a blanket sex-based ban when safety can be addressed through individualized, nondiscriminatory regulatory tools (e.g., medical examinations and fitness requirements).
- An agency’s broad mandate to regulate in the public interest does not authorize rules that conflict with constitutional equal protection requirements.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated NYSAC’s categorical ban on licensing women as professional boxers, holding that denying a license solely because the applicant is female violated state and federal equal protection and could not be justified by image-based or paternalistic health rationales where individualized regulation was available.


Garrett v. N.Y. State Athletic Comm’n, 82 Misc. 2d 524 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1975)