I've looked but haven't been able to find one.

I found it on PACER...13-cv-00262 in the DC District. The moms list themselves as Soror Lessie Colfield and Soror Sandra Compton in the caption, which I thought was interesting.

It's not worth paying to see, but if someone has paid for it, I think it'd likely be an entertaining read.

Some links...
 

Mentioned on justia.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/dis...v00262/158557/

Judge is Rosemary M. Collyer.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Rosemary_Collyer

She is Caucasian and appointed to the DC District Court in 2002 by George W Bush. Her Bachelors degree is from Trinity College (which makes the chance she is in a sorority fairly small). However this is *not* her first case involving an NPHC sorority! She handled a case where Delta Sigma Theta sued DEREK & JAMAR PRODUCTION, LLC.

Shoot me a PM - I tried PMing you but your box is full.

Ok, so this is what's on Laurens FB & she left this on her public profile. Oh and apparently the complaint is availible online. Still searching for it.

"[Name] because it's not about grad chapter. Let me outline this for you.
My mom pledged Alpha Chapter at Howard University so all of my life this is where I knew I wanted to pledge. I get here, there's a line my freshman year (freshman can't pledge at Howard) my sophomore and junior year they are suspended from having lines because of hazing people. Finally, as a senior, my FIRST and LAST opportunity arises and I'm told AFTER submitting my application that senior legacies aren't being considered and sophomores and juniors who will have more opportunities are getting priority. To add insult to injury the ONLY reason senior legacies were not considered is because of an unauthorized legacy cap that didn't allow for senior legacies to even be considered. This cap came during the hiatus of no lines. I appreciate your concern and that your inquisitive enough to seek the truth. So as I said, it's not about grad chapter. It's about blocking people from having an opportunity just because they are seniors (beyond my control) and legacy (also beyond my control)."

Her AKA (different school) friends response
--"but private organizations have the opportunity to choose who they invite for membership. Just like Jack and Jill. There are PLENTY of mothers who want their children in jack and jill, but its a private organization that invites people into membership. it is NO ONE'S absolute right, legacy or not, to be an AKA. Patience probably would have served you better. Being a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha is about being in close connection with other women. Trying to force them to accept you completely perverts the sisterhood aspect of it and you would probably never get out of it what the vast majority of us do."

We have the same issue in a lot of our old line chapters. They could take nothing but legacies and sometimes have to turn away a lot of them because they focus on individual quality, not necessarily who your parents are.

Like I said, this simply highlights that you can file a lawsuit over anything. Think the President is a Kenyan Muslim who is ineligible for office? The court clerk will stamp your complaint and you can have someone serve it on the President.

Do you think fluoride in your drinking water is there to make Americans docile and subject to mind control beams from the GPS satellites? The Court Clerk will file your complaint in and you can sue whoever you want to on that.

Is Rule 11 something the courts probably don't make enough use of? I think so.

^^^^^ Just as I suspected. She felt entitled to obtain membership for the reasons I thought she would. :rolleyes:

So instead they should block people from an opportunity because of not being a senior (something out of their control) or not being a legacy (again something out of their control). I love the logic.

Perhaps, but its their org. They can use any reason they want for membership selection criteria.

We (the outsiders) don't have to like it or understand it. Its their org, they can run it how they please. AKA does not owe us outsiders any justification for their membership selection criteria.

I was talking about the plaintiffs. The logic they were using to justify the law suit was essentially that other people should have been discriminated against.

Gotch! ;)

I enjoy being quoted!

I'm so torn on the story, with all the information presented. This totally reeks of entitlement issues, but their mothers (and the sorority) perpetuated the entitlement. Based on (if this is true) the Alpha chapter taking other senior legacies over these 2 women within whatever cap they had, it's the strongest supporting evidence that this chapter just doesn't like them. Way to go for AC making their point, even if it means they're in violation of their national protocol.

Related note: i'm so PRO Rashid's Chapterpublican Party, though I'm torn as to who's decision this really was. The bigger question is, why did the membership committee at AC feel it necessary to explain their decisions to these NONMEMBERS? I thought most orgs did it to protect scenarios like this.

Their moms definitely seemed to perpetuate it. Lifting this directly out of the complaint:

"That as a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in as much as she will never be able to pin her daughter as an initiate of the Alpha Chapter of AKA, the chapter in which she was initiated, nor will she ever be able to share that personal bond of sorority as a Chapter soror which she’d always dreamed of and that was very important to her and her daughter."

So being a parent of a legacy gets you standing? Interesting theory!