Wyoming sorority tells federal judge that allowing a biological male violates their rights

(The Center Square) - Attorneys representing a group of University of Wyoming women argued Monday that the sorority counsel violated their contract and incorrectly interpreted what “women” meant in their bylaws by allowing a biological male to join the organization.

The sorority was not following the correct procedures in implementing their expanded definition to include transgender women, the attorneys argued.

The case, Holtmeier, et al. v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity, et al., appeared on the Tenth Circuit Court’s docket located in Denver after being litigated in a Wyoming state court for nearly four years.

The case made its way up to a federal court after an appeal was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in response to a Wyoming judge’s granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in June 2025.

Angela Lavin argued for the female sorority members Allie Coghan, Haley Rutsch, Jaylyn Westenbroek, and Hannah and Maddie Holtmeier.

The case rests on a breach of contract claim in which Lavin alleges the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority counsel implemented the expansion of the definition of “women” without properly following the sorority’s bylaw rules for redefining terms in their organization’s governing documents.

The argument Lavin relied on in court was that since Kappa Kappa Gamma’s founding in 1870, the term “women” in their bylaws referred to the single-sex category of an adult female. However, in 2015, the sorority counsel issued a position statement expanding the definition of women to include individuals who also identify as women, regardless of their biological sex.

Kappa Kappa Gamma then admitted a transgender woman to the sorority’s chapter at the University of Wyoming in 2022.

Coghan, Rutsch, Westernbroek, the Holtmeier sisters, and other members of the sorority were then forced to share their intimate spaces with a biological man.

Lavin claims the sorority counsel did not follow the proper procedures in implementing the expanded definition of woman thereby breaching their contract of duties to provide adequate notice and a majority vote for the approval of the new definition.

She also referred to an Ohio law – where the sorority counsel is based out of – and stated that the boards of nonprofits cannot establish new rules and criteria that are inconsistent with the bylaws and purpose of the bylaws.

The main premise of the defendant’s argument was that the counsel did not violate their contract because they are vested with the authority to interpret and implement the organization’s bylaws.

All three federal judges appeared to agree with this claim, but questioned the timeline in which the new definition was rolled out and if the counsel adequately provided notice to its members.

The defendant’s attorney, Rachel M. Berkness, contended that the procedure the counsel followed is consistent with both Ohio nonprofit law and the bylaws of the sorority itself.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes seemed to disagree, questioning Lavin’s position that the sorority counsel does not have the authority to interpret the definition of a woman.

Lavin responded by saying the counsel does have the authority to do so, but it must follow the proper procedures afterwards to implement the new definition, which includes proper notice to the sorority chapters and members and a majority vote.

A press conference followed the hearing outside the Byron White U.S. Courthouse for the plaintiffs sponsored by supporting organizations such as the Independent Women’s Forum, Athletes for Action, Daughters of the American Revolution, and various alumni members of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority.

“This case is not about politics or personal identity,” Lavin said. “It’s about whether organizations established as women’s organizations can fundamentally change who they serve without transparency, accountability or the consent of the women who belong to them.”

Beth Parlato, an attorney from Independent Women’s Law Center, said she disagreed with a statement from federal judge Nancy L. Moritz that said "standing counsel has the responsibility to define women, and the word women has several definitions."

She further went on to say that she was struggling to agree with the plaintiffs’ argument that the court should “mandate” a requirement forcing the sorority to define women in the traditional way they desire.

“Words have meaning. Words matter,” Parlato said. “The word women is non-subjective. It is an objective word with objective meaning. With all due respect to your honor, you are wrong.”

Hannah Holtmeier said the benefits and nature of the sorority was why her and her sister felt compelled to join in the first place. She said that the sorority allowed her a place to grow as an individual and professionally as it equipped her with confidence in social and post-academic settings.

“Here’s the thing: when we allow men into sororities, women become uncomfortable and become less likely to engage in the social and philanthropic opportunities sororities provide," she said. "Every plaintiff up here has personally testified that.

“I can stand up here all day and tell you how having a man in my sorority completely changed my life; or how uncomfortable my roommate and I were sleeping in a house that a man had full access to; or how admitting a man as a member completely divided a house that was once a happy and safe place for all its female members.”

She then asked the women in the crowd to raise their hand if they had ever participated in a female-only organization – whether that be sports, clubs, or organizations – that helped them gain valuable social and life skills.

There were nearly 50 women in the crowd, with every single one of them raising their hand.

All of the women then lowered their hand when Holtmeier asked if they felt their opportunities to engage and grow in these settings would be diminished by the admission of a man into the organization or team.

The Circuit Court’s panel of judges did not make a decision today but are expected to decide soon whether to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ September 2025 appeal.