​

        The 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) and the Women’s National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA) was celebrated as a landmark achievement in professional women’s sports. It promised higher salaries, improved travel conditions, increased maternity benefits, and greater transparency within league operations. But beneath the surface, the CBA brought up difficult questions about how labor laws, gender equality, and contract rights intersect in professional sports. 

 

Maternity Leave and the Legal Fight for Workplace Equity 

        One of the most significant victories in the 2020 CBA was the inclusion of paid maternity leave at 100% of a player’s base salary. While this promise of equity seemed like a huge step toward gender fairness in professional sports, the reality was more complex. The CBA’s protections often failed to shield players from subtle but damaging effects of discrimination such as the retaliation of unfair trades [1]. This gap shows that achieving true equality in the WNBA requires more than financial guarantees; it needs structural and cultural change that values players as both athletes and people. 

        In Dearica Hamby v. Las Vegas Aces & WNBA (2023), WNBA player Dearica Hamby claimed she was traded, and thus discriminated against, because of her pregnancy, claiming this to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act [2]. As a result, Hamby’s case raised crucial questions about how far the CBA’s protections actually extend. While the CBA guaranteed maternity pay, it did not protect players from retaliation or discriminatory treatment from WNBA teams. Being traded in professional sports can seriously affect a player’s career- it can mean being uprooted from their home, losing stability, and even damaging their reputation. For Hamby, being traded while pregnant was especially harmful, both professionally and emotionally. Her lawsuit explains that once she told the Aces she was pregnant, the team allegedly revoked promised housing and tuition benefits, questioned her commitment, accused her of not preparing properly, and suggested her pregnancy made her unreliable. She also says staff made degrading comments about her decision to become pregnant and treated her as if she had done something wrong [3]. The case revealed how the CBA’s limited language left space for teams to exploit loopholes, offering financial protections but not real job security or respect for pregnant athletes. In this way, Hamby’s experience highlights that inequality in women’s sports extends beyond maternity pay; it also includes the lack of protection from discrimination and retaliation. 

        Moreover, the case exposed the tension between league arbitration procedures and federal employment law. Arbitration is a private process used to settle issues outside of court, where a neutral third party, called an arbitrator, reviews the evidence and decides. While it is designed to be faster and less expensive than a formal trial, it can also be a “lesser” path for employees like Hamby. Hamby’s lawyers argued that the arbitration clause in the CBA limited her ability to bring discrimination claims to court [4]. This was like the Supreme Court’s decision in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett (2009), which said that collective bargaining agreements can require employees to handle discrimination claims through arbitration instead of going to court [5].  While this ruling strengthened employers’ ability to manage disputes privately, it also undermined workers’ rights by limiting access to public courts, where cases can set precedents and hold institutions accountable. For women athletes, the impact is even more significant.  Because women’s leagues tend to have less financial power, media visibility, and union strength compared to men’s leagues, arbitration keeps their experiences hidden and discourages others from speaking out. The lack of transparency can make it harder to expose patterns of inequality, leaving female athletes with fewer avenues for justice. Taking these cases together shows how contractual language can shape the real enforceability of players’ rights. 

​

[1] WNBA–WNBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (2020). 

[2] Complaint, Hamby v. Las Vegas Aces & WNBA (2023). 

[3] ESPN, AP News, and Review-Journal reporting on Hamby’s allegations (2023–2024). 

[4] Hamby legal filings regarding arbitration limitations (2024). 

[5] 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009). 

​

Pay Transparency and the Economics of Gender Disparity 

        The WNBA’s 2020 CBA promised major progress, with a 53% pay increase and new revenue sharing opportunities, but a significant pay gap between men’s and women’s basketball remains [6]. 

WNBA players continue to make only about 1% of what NBA players earn, exhibiting the room for progressive action in the league regarding truly equitable and equal pay. 

        Unfortunately, the struggle for equity-equitable pay in women’s sports is not unique to basketball. In United States Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) v. U.S. Soccer Federation (2019), female players filed a lawsuit under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, arguing that they performed equal work under less favorable conditions than their male peers [7]. Although the case settled in 2022, it served as a catalyst for collective bargaining reforms across women’s sports, including the WNBA. Both the USWNT and WNBA fought systems that justified inequality through claims of “different revenue” or “market realities.” In each, collective bargaining became a tool to demand not just higher pay but fair treatment, maternity protections, and respect equal to that given to male athletes. Together, these cases show how labor law has become central to advancing gender equality in professional sports. 

 

[6] WNBA CBA salary figures; NBA vs. WNBA earnings comparisons. 

[7] USWNT v. U.S. Soccer Federation, Equal Pay Act & Title VII filings (2019–2022). 

​

Arbitration, Power, and Labor Rights 

        While collective bargaining agreements are often seen as wins as they give athletes more autonomy within working conditions, they simultaneously highlight the limits of what players can advocate for. For example, arbitration clauses are intended to provide a more efficient avenue to handle disputes, but they can also stop athletes from taking certain legal actions or receiving the whole justice such as the right to a public trial, the ability to appeal a decision, or the chance to set a legal precedent available in court. Arbitration tends to favor the institution because it keeps proceedings private, reduces public scrutiny, and limits reputation damaging lawsuits that could expose broader patterns of unfair treatment. The WNBA’s CBA, for example, directs most disputes, including discrimination and retaliation of claims, into arbitration. This echoes the precedent set in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett [8], where the Supreme Court upheld mandatory arbitration for age discrimination claims in a union contract. While such clauses may protect leagues from costly litigation, they also raise questions about fairness and due process for players. 

 

[8] 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009). 

​

Conclusion 

        The WNBA’s 2020 CBA marked a transformative moment for professional women’s sports, redefining compensation, maternity rights, and working conditions. Yet, cases like Hamby v. Las Vegas Aces reveal that contractual language alone cannot guarantee equity. As women’s sports continue to expand, the next frontier in sports and entertainment law will focus not just on negotiating better deals, but ensuring that legal protections, from Title VII to the Equal Pay Act, are fully enforceable beyond the court and into the courtroom. This tension between what is promised on paper and what is experienced in practice reflects a broader societal dynamic: the ongoing gap between formal equality and living equality. Just like women in other fields still face barriers despite legal protections, the challenges seen in professional sports highlight how systemic inequities persist even within institutions that claim progress. In this way, Hamby’s case is not just about basketball; it mirrors the larger struggle for accountability, transparency, and genuine equity in workplaces across society.