The fight over going topless on the beach in Ocean City, Maryland has come up again resurfaced this week after five women filed a complaint in federal court against the town and its mayor, claiming discrimination.The people behind this lawsuit said it's about equality. The case was filed seven months after Ocean City passed an emergency rule banning women from being bare-chested in public.It's a constitutional controversy that's been simmering over the sands of Ocean City: Who can be bare-chested on the beach by law?''An Eastern Shore woman and "top freedom" advocate named Chelsea Eline has been leading the way."Unfortunately, the town of Ocean City does not want to follow the law. And so, here we are. We're going to litigate it," her lawyer, Civil Rights Attorney Devon Jacob said.In June, Chelsea made it clear that she would be going bare-chested in the same places where men are allowed. Ocean City's mayor and council fired back, first on Facebook, saying, "The town of Ocean City is not a topless beach and will not become a topless beach."The following day, an emergency ordinance prohibited women from going topless in public areas, saying, "This is a family resort.""The idea that Ocean City is a family-friendly place is just a nice way of dressing up pure bigotry," Jacob said.The plaintiffs said the ordinance is sexist and discriminatory. They want an injunction so that the ordinance can't be enforced and a formal declaration that it's unconstitutional."There are good men and women out there who are fighting for equality and you see it in the #MeToo movement, but you're seeing it here as well. This is where it starts, or rather, frankly, this is where it's going to end," Jacob said.Last summer, Ocean City leaders said their decision was partially driven by backlash from concerned residents. The Mayor of Ocean City responded to the lawsuit saying: The Mayor and City Council firmly believe that Ocean City must continue to be a family resort that does not permit women to be topless on our beaches or in other public areas. As clearly stated in our emergency ordinance passed in June 2017, “there is no constitutional right for an individual to appear in public nude or in a state of nudity. It does not implicate either the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to privacy, or a protected liberty interest. It lacks any communicated value that might call for First Amendment protection." We will pursue all available legal options to ensure that this remains the case for the benefit of our residents and the millions of families who visit our town each year.