New York Times Examines Coach Salary Disparity in Basketball

Tonight, Baylor and Notre Dame will play for the NCAA championship in women's basketball, so the New York Times chose today to run an article about salary disparities between coaches of men's and women's teams. According to the article, the coaches of women’s college basketball teams are paid about one-half or one-third of the amount of the men’s basketball coach. There are a few exceptions, like Tennessee's Pat Summitt, whose $2.2 million annual salary is actually more than her men's team counterpart, and Geno Auriemma, who makes two-thirds of UConn men's team coach Jim Calhoun. But in most cases, men's basketball coaches (who are almost always men) are paid two- or three- times more than the coaches of women's teams, whether they are male or female.

The article then examines factors that contribute to this disparity, which defies the general principal under Title IX that men's and women's teams receive comparable resources, including coaches of equal caliber, and the Equal Pay Act, which prohibits paying women less for equal work. One source of the disparity is third-party sources of income, like endorsements and speaker fees. Men's coaches are also able to capitalize on market forces that make their summer camps a profitable endeavor, while women's team's summer camps are generally recruiting tools that break even. The article also notes that unlike the coaches on the men's side, whose teams receive favorable treatment automatically, coaches of women's teams use their employment contract to secure amenities for their teams. This presumably cuts into their bargaining power to leverage higher salaries.

The article also provides some insight into law's limited ability to address disparities in head coach salaries. Title IX's limitation in this regard is that it is student-focused. The law requires equal treatment for men's and women's teams, which includes the quality of coaching each program receives. Quality of coaching is of course a function of the compensation available. But the overall market for salaries in women's sport generally allows universities to purchase a coach of comparable quality to head their women's teams, just at discount prices.

The Equal Pay Act is also implicated by salary disparities, but limited in its ability to address the problem. For one thing, as the article notes, third-party payments like endorsements are outside the scope of the Equal Pay Act. (I do think, however, that a case could be made for including booster club payments as part of the equal pay equation, by analogizing to Title IX, which requires school districts that accept funds raised by one team's boosters to still provide equal treatment to boys and girls teams.) Another limit is that the Equal Pay Act provides a remedy to women who are paid less than men for equal work -- it doesn't apply to male coaches of women's teams who may be paid less than male coaches of men's teams. And even where the Equal Pay Act does apply, universities can justify disparities in base pay by arguing that the male coach has more job responsibilities -- even if such additional job responsibilities are seemingly manufactured for that purpose, such as requiring the men's team coach to make 20 public appearances and the women's team coach15 (an example from the article). The Equal Pay Act also allows universities to justify paying male coaches more based when their team brings in more revenue, even though this disparity is due to to external market forces rather than the respective effort that each coach puts into the job.

Reversing the Trend of Declining Women Coaches

This article on ESPN.com addresses the dearth of female coaches in a way that appropriately puts the responsibility on colleges and universities to make sure that it is reaching out to a diverse pool of candidates as well as creating a working environment that is friendly and conducive to coaches of both sexes. I have just one complaint about an obvious omission. If you want to attract female coaches, you have to make sure that your institution is doing right by lesbians. No, I don't believe that all aspiring female coaches are gay -- of course that's not true. But some are. Many are. If you want to attract the largest possible pool of female applicants, you should also be asking the following questions, in addition to the advice about that the ESPN article provides about recruiting, mentoring, networking, and supporting female coaches.

• Does your institution have employment policies that are gay and lesbian friendly? For example, do you have a nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation as a protected class, and do you offer domestic partner benefits?
• What has your department done to address the problem of negative recruiting? (Negative recruiting is the practice of mentioning another coach's perceived lesbianism to potential recruits and their families in an effort to gain a recruiting advantage over that coach.) Do you have a zero-tolerance policy for coaches who engage in negative recruiting, and have you stood up for coaches against whom negative recruiting has been used?
  
• What is the culture and climate of your athletic department? Are all coaches' partners and families welcome at events? Are gay and lesbian staff members as free as anyone else to talk openly about their partners and families?
  
• Do your media guides provide equal treatment to coaches' nontraditional families, or do they only mention coaches' opposite-sex spouses?
• Are recruiting materials using code words like "family friendly" or "Christian values" that may be signaling discomfort or exclusion of lesbian coaches?

See also, this article in New York Times about dwindling number of female head coaches in women's hockey. It too provides a comprehensive analysis of the problem, but fails to mention homophobia in sport as a contributing factor.

More coaches in PA?

Parents of student-athletes on the girls' cross-country and softball teams have gone to the Daniel Boone School Board (in Pennsylvania) asking why their teams do not have assistant coaches. The boys' baseball team has an assistant coach. Worried about the safety of the members, parents are asking for funds to pay for assistant coaches for these teams and wondering if the lack of assistants currently is a Title IX violation.
We cannot say based on the information in this brief article. Do other girls' teams have assistant coaches? How many of the boys' teams have assistant coaches?
These are the things the school board--and the parents--will want to investigate when the issue comes up next at a board meeting.
I found this situation interesting in light of the recent trend in complaints where schools are being cited for multiple violations at once. This is a very specific complaint. I surmise that parents felt the absence of assistant coaches is an issue that needs remedying and sought a legal and persuasive way to remedy it--and they found Title IX.

Quinnipiac seeks to lift volleyball injunction

When Quinnipiac University tried to cut its women's volleyball team several years ago, it lead to the now famous and controversial case about cheerleading. (If you're not quite sure how that happened, click on the Quinnipiac tag.)
Early on in those proceedings volleyball asked for and received an injunction which prevented the university from cutting the team. That injunction is still in place while QU gets its proverbial house in order--i.e. they achieve compliance. Believing that are so, the university filed with the court in December of 2011. A hearing is scheduled for June 11.
But those watching QU closely say the university has not changed its ways. Sandra Staub of the Connecticut ACLU does not believe the university  has made any "meaningful improvement in the allotment of athletic opportunities for women at Quinnipiac." Additionally, QU is facing more legal proceedings regarding equal treatment. Staub argues that the school has some issues in the areas of facilities and coaching, among other unnamed items.
Clearly the university wants to replace the volleyball team. It has already fired the head coach. But whether they will have to seek out a new head coach remains to be seen.

Retaliation Case Filed Against Jackson State

Denise Taylor, former women's basketball coach at Jackson State University, has reportedly filed a retaliation suit against the university in federal court. Her suit alleges that she was terminated with two years left on her contract in retaliation for threatening to file a Title IX complaint after she was denied the opportunity to attend the convention of the Women's Basketball Association. The university's stated reason for terminating Taylor's contract including "sexual gender stereotyping, verbal abuse and misappropriation of funds." As litigation proceeds, it will be Taylor's burden as the plaintiff to prove that the university's reasons are pretext, and that the real reason she was terminated was retaliation for threatening to file a gender equity complaint.

Preliminary Court Rulings Shape Ball State Retaliation Litigation

After Kathy Bull was terminated from her position as head coach of Ball State's women's tennis team (which we blogged about here), she filed a federal lawsuit contesting this decision as unlawful retaliation under Title IX and other laws. Last week, the federal judge in Indiana granted Ball State's motions to dismiss several of Bull's claims, resulting in a winnowing of Coach Bull's claims that could be headed for trial.

The court did not dismiss Bull's primary claim, that Ball State is institutionally liable under Title IX for firing her in retaliation for her advocacy for gender equity. But the judge did dismiss her claims against individual university officials, which she had filed both under Title IX as well as Section 1983, the statute that allows plaintiffs to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional violations. Title IX, of course, only provides for institutional, not individual liability. And while 1983 does allow a plaintiff to enforce constitutional claims against individuals who are state officials, it does not allow plaintiffs to sue individuals for money damages, as Coach Bull's complaint had apparently been framed. Further applying these protections for state officials -- known as sovereign immunity --the court dismissed individual claims against the members of the Board of Trustees, as well as state law claims against Ball State officials and trustees.

Decision is: Bull v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball State Univ., 2011 WL 6740549 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2011)

Mississippi High School Coach Sues District

Catherine Papagolos, former softball coach, filed suit against the Lafayette County School District in Mississippi, claiming that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about gender equity in her salary. Specifically, it is reported that she alleged she was fired after questioning why her salary was not comparable to that of the high school baseball coach.

While Title IX does not require coaches in similar sports to be paid the same -- factors like experience and other qualifications, size of team, and size of staff may justify differences -- it is important that for protection from retaliation to kick in, all that is required is Coach Papagolos's reasonable belief that a violation had occured. No one should get fired for complaining in good faith about the gender equity of a district's policy or decision.

Coach Files Retaliation Suit Against Central Connecticut State

A former track and cross-country coach at Central Connecticut State University has filed a lawsuit claiming that the university decided not to renew her contract in retaliation for her efforts to secure equal treatment for her team. Brenda Webb was hired by the university in 2006 on a one-year contract, which was renewed annually until it was terminated in 2010. According to her complaint, Webb successfully coached the women's track and cross-country team during that time, improving the team's record and engaging in successful recruiting efforts. Yet despite being promised equal treatment compared to the men's track team, Webb's team allegedly received a much lower budget than the men's team, less access to facilities, and had problems securing transportation to away meets. Webb also noted inequitable support from a "shared" assistant coach who spent his time helping the men's team and not the women's.

Webb claims that when she raised these concerns to a university official with oversight responsibility over athletics, her complaints were mocked and not taken seriously. Rather than investigate her complaints, the compliance officer investigated Webb, while one athletic department official allegedly pressured an athlete to file complaints against her. She was also threatened with "disciplinary action" if she did not "ignore everything that was happening" and continue to press her complaints. Meanwhile, Webb also noted ways in which she was afforded less respect than the male coaches, such as being left off the athletic department website (when newly-hired male coaches were added immediately) and misreporting the men's head coach's title as "Head Coach for Track" (instead of "Head Coach for Men's Track"). Webb claims she was also singled out for budget reductions and the cancellation of one of her athlete's scholarships. She attributes to this hostility to the fact that the athletic department had supported the assistant track coach for her position and was disappointed that the university president had required them to hire a woman instead.

In 2010, an athletic department evaluation committee recommended Webb for another contract renewal, noting the athletic and academic success of her team. But the athletic director did not renew her contract and instead combined the men's and women's track teams back together, as they had been before Webb was hired. The assistant coach who had sought Webb's job was hired as the head coach of the unified team, notwithstanding Webb's longer experience in coaching and coaching in Division I, as well as other superior coaching credentials.

On these facts, Webb's complaint satisfies the elements to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title IX. She alleges that she complained about gender equity, and that she experienced adverse employment consequences including being terminated from her position. She also alleges facts that support the inference that those two things are causally connected, including that she was threatened with "discipline" if she did not drop her complaints. The university will likely defend this lawsuit by proffering "legitimate" reasons for terminating Webb, perhaps by arguing that Webb did not meet performance expectations. Webb will then have to prove that the university's proffered reason is actually a pretext for retaliation. For example, if the university claims she was fired because her team was not competitive, Webb could demonstrate this is a pretext by proving the allegations in her complaint that the university did not terminate the coaches of other men's teams that were not as successful as hers.

Webb's complaint also includes counts of direct discrimination under Title IX, as well as comparable claims under state law. She seeks compensatory and other damages exceeding $2 million dollars, a number that is not out of bounds after verdicts and settlements in similar retaliation cases against Fresno State and Florida Gulf Coast University.

Resolution Agreement Reached at Adrian College

An anonymous reader mailed me a copy of a Resolution Agreement between the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, and Adrian College in Michigan. In 2008, we blogged about ongoing investigation into a complaint against the college stemming from among other things the college's failure to include a women's locker room in its newly constructed "Multi-Purpose Stadium." (see here and here). Apparently, the inequities between men and women's sports at Adrian College were significant, as the college has agreed to remedies in every area covered by Title IX's athletic regulations. Specifically, the college has agree to:

• Evaluate its intercollegiate athletics program "to identify one or ore women's sport team to add in the 2012-2013 academic year."
• Develop a written replacement schedule for equipment and supplies, including uniforms, which will ensure equity by gender.
• Increase the number of competitive events for softball and women's tennis.
• Ensure that women's softball is not the only team stuck with 6 am indoor practices, but that that burden is shared by men's teams as well.
• Ensure that the head coach for men's and women's track splits his time equally between the teams, and to hire an assistant coach for women's track.
• Improve hiring practices to attract more qualified coaches to the women's program, including by increasing compensation and other conditions of employment to make the job more attractive to qualified applicants.
• Construct a new locker room for women in the Multi-Purpose Stadium.
• Renovate existing women's locker rooms in other facilities.
  
• Renovate the women's softball facility to allow for night play, concessions, changing areas, and spectator viewing.
  
• Assign the same number of "equivalently qualified" medical and training staff to men's and women's games.
• Provide equivalent publicity ("e.g., media coverage, statistics maintenance, attendance at games, and other services") to men's and women's teams.
• Provide recruitment funds to men's and women's teams "in proportion to each gender's participation rate in the athletics program" and, as needed, to the women's program at a greater rate in order to make up for the "significant" underrepresentation of women in the athletics program.
• Adhere to various reporting and monitoring requirements with respect to these promises.

OCR will continue to monitor the agreement until it determines that the College has fulfilled its terms.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Victory for Montana State in Retaliation Case

Despite my prediction, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss former coach retaliation Robin Potera-Haskins's case against Montana State. Apparently the appellate panel was not as concerned as I was about the trial judge's failure to give reasons for his determination that Potera-Haskins lacked credibility, or why it made sense to assume, in an employment case, that money damages were not at issue and therefore a jury trial was not warranted. But the judges certainly didn't take the time to say why, affirming the lower court's decision in a four-sentence, unpublished opinion.

NYT investigates OCR's role in enforcement

Another good NYT piece today by Katie Thomas on Title IX enforcement. This one focuses on the Office of Civil Rights and how they do and have (or have not) investigated Title IX complaints. Not surprisingly, investigation and enforcement are politically driven, and we have certainly seen periods of lax enforcement--some of the specifics--like the complaint against USC that began in 1998 and is still not closed--are highlighted in Thomas's article.
But it also offers some hope for better enforcement and attention by the office under the new leadership of Russlynn Ali, who is an Obama appointee.
Other interesting points: the practice of self-investigation where OCR--because it is understaffed and overworked (dealing with all civil rights violations--not just Title IX complaints)--offers a school the opportunity to investigate itself and issue a report to OCR, rather than having OCR come in. I've always been wary--if not outright critical--of this practice because it requires, as Ali notes, a good faith effort in the part of schools. And I remain skeptical that schools, once informed of violations but still reluctant to remedy them--are really worthy of that kind of trust.
And the recent case at Ball State University, which we have not yet written about and which is highlighted in the article, is proof of why self investigations might not be all that effective. Ball State seems to have a problem retaining the coaches of its women's teams. Since 2005 12 head coaches of women's teams have left. There are only 11 women's teams at Ball State. And it is actually being sued by a former tennis coach. Offered the chance to investigate itself, the university, well, dropped the ball. They issued a finding that there was no discrimination--after two weeks! It failed to interview any coaches and didn't produce any new evidence in its report! Let's just reiterate: in an investigation about discriminatory practices in hiring/firing--the university didn't interview one coach;the president said she didn't think it was necessary.
And all is not right at Ball State in terms of facilities. Under pressure from OCR, the university has added some locker rooms for women's teams after it was discovered some athletes were changing in their cars and/or a storage shed.
Still the threat of OCR showing up on campus does compel more earnest responses from other institutions, which is why Ali is not ready to abandon the practice of self investigation.

Cheerleading Coach Files Title IX Lawsuit Against University of Alabama

Debbie Greenwell was the head cheerleading coach at the University of Alabama for more than 24 years, until, she alleges, she was terminated from her position in a dramatic fashion in response to her advocacy for equal treatment for her student-athletes. She has recently filed a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the university's conduct as discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title IX.

Though Greenwell's team was not a varsity sport, it was part of the athletic department. Greenwell was hired by and answered to the athletic director. She ran very lucrative cheerleading camps that made cheerleading the second most-profitable athletic department enterprise, after football. In 2008, her cheerleading camp netted $400,000 -- money that all went in to the athletic department general fund. Greenwell brought other perks and prestige to Alabama athletics as well, yet, she argues, the athletic department exploited her by refusing to pay her commensurately to other coaches. Apparently, the University justified paying Greenwell less than other coaches on the grounds that cheerleading program was not an NCAA sport with varsity competition. But Greenwell argues -- validly, in my opinion -- that for purposes of determining pay equity, what matters is that her responsibilities of running camps and the cheerleading squad required effort equal if not greater to that of other coaches. Additionally, U of A held Greenwell out as one of their "coaches" when it suited them, to associate the institution with her prestige.

However, Greenwell's complaint is light on a couple of details that will determine the validity of charges against the university. In particular, there are no details about how Greenwell's salaries actually compared to those of male coaches. Also, it's not clear exactly on what basis Greenwell alleges the required nexus between the issue of her salary disparity and the fact of her termination. The complaint states that she advocated for a higher salary once in 2003, and that another time in 2006, she and students complained about the inequitable lack of academic and other support for cheerleaders compared to other student athletes. Typically, retaliation cases succeed when the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct much closer in time to the employer's retaliatory conduct (Greenwell was terminated in 2009). We'll have to wait and see whether such additional factual allegations are forthcoming, or whether their omission is enough to warrant dismissal of her case.

Complaint targets Boiling Springs HS

I'm not blogging about the recently filed OCR complaint targetting Boiling Springs High School in South Carolina because I think the story is especially unusual or raises any new issues.
It's just an example of both good coverage of the issue (for the most part) and a good complaint.
Mike Tutterow, who has two girls at Boiling Springs (why didn't my high school have such a cool name??), filed the complaint after attempting to work out some of the issues (for several years) he saw within the athletic department. Note that anyone can file an OCR complaint. One does not have to be affiliated, in any way, with the school.
But Tutterow witnessed many discrepancies including: the quality and rate of replacement of boys' and girls' soccer uniforms; girls' coaches who had to launder their own team's uniforms; access to strength training; and differences in facilities (specifically the softball and baseball complexes).
It's not just treatment of athletes, however, it's about participation as well.
Girls are 47 percent of the schools 1600-person student body. They have only 30 percent of the athletic opportunities.
OCR visited Boiling Springs last week for two days.
The school superintendent, though, believes the school is in compliance and thinks OCR will find the complaint "unfounded." Based on what I have read, this seems unlikely. But the superintendent did say the district would make whatever changes recommended by OCR should the complaint indeed be founded.

Retaliation Case Against Texas Southern University Dismissed

Last week a federal court in Texas dismissed a former coach's claims that he was fired by Texas Southern University in retaliation for his Title IX advocacy. Cummings alleged that one week prior to his termination, he met with Athletic Director and raised concerns about the comparatively lower number of assistant coaches allowed for the women's basketball, as well as a lower budget for recruiting and operating costs, and the absence of an appointed Title IX Coordinator and Senior Women's Administrator. Though these facts created an inference of retaliation, TSU overcame this inference with evidence that they fired Cummings because of his team's poor win-loss record and low academic success indicators. None of Cummings's evidence rebutted TSU's claims that its reasons for firing him were legitimate. The only evidence that his advocacy and termination were related was the fact that they happened close in time, but this circumstantial evidence, without more, was not enough to survive summary judgment.

Though this case was dismissed, another former TSU women's basketball coach's retaliation cases remains pending. You may recall Surina Dixon, who was hired to be Cummings's successor. She held the job for just a couple of months before she was terminated, allegedly for questioning TSU's decision to pay her half as much and on a shorter contract term than the newly-hired men's basketball coach. Dixon's case remains pending and dispositive motions have been filed. I expect we'll be hearing more about that TSU case in the near future.

Cummings v. Texas Southern University, 2011 WL 1750697(S.D.Tex. May 06, 2011).

School Not Liable In USA Swimming Sex Taping Case

Last year, the media revealed numerous instances of sexual abuse by coaches affiliated with USA Swimming. One of the most notorious cases was that of Brian Hindson, who had arranged a secret video camera to tape female swimmers to whom he had given permission to change clothes in his office. After the video tapes were discovered years later, Hindson was convicted of criminal abuse and sentenced for 33 years in federal prison.

One of his victims, Brooke Taflinger, also brought a lawsuit against USA Swimming and the Indiana school district, Westfield-Washington, whose pool was the venue for Hindson's club team's practices and competitions. Recently, however, the federal district court in Indiana dismissed the Title IX claims against the school district. Though Hindson's team used the school district's pool, it was not part of Westfield-Washington's educational activities. Moreover, the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that school district officials had notice of Hindson's secret taping, nor did she allege any facts on which they reasonably should have known such abuse was going on. The school district could have have been expected to know that this abuse was going on, where Hindson "deliberately sought to and did in fact conceal his criminal activity from everyone, including the school," said the court. In fact, Hindson successfully concealed the videotapes of plaintiff from everyone for 8 years; they were only revealed after Hindson sold his computer that still contained recorded footage. Based on these facts, the school district could not have known that Hindson was taping his swimmers, and should not be liable for it.

Decision: Taflinger v. Hindson, 2011 WL 304699 (S.D.Ind. January 26, 2011).

Ex-Coaches Allege Retaliation by Diablo Valley College

Two former coaches at Diablo Valley College in California, part of the Contra Costa Community College district, are reportedly suing in federal court to contest their allegation that they were retaliated against for challenging the college's decision to terminate two women's teams last year. As we have earlier reported on this blog, the coaches complained both internally with the district and externally with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights that the cuts would violate Title IX due to the severe disparity in athletic opportunities for men and women. These complaints resulted in the reinstatement of all of the terminated teams, which include the men's and women's cross country, track, and tennis teams, but the coaches who had raised the Title IX issue were not rehired to their jobs.

As I told the reporter for this story, it is often challenging for retaliation plaintiffs to prove that the reason for the adverse employment consequences (here, not being rehired) was retaliation for complaining about discrimination, rather than for some other neutral purpose such as the financial or budgetary reasons DVC maintains. Therefore, it is significant that the coaches in this case allege that they were directly told by the athletic director that "there would be negative consequences for filing a complaint." If that evidence proves true, these coaches would prevail on what is usually the highest hurdle for plaintiffs in retaliation cases.


(N.B. In case the plaintiffs or their lawyers are reading this, please know that the aforementioned reporter had asked me about general background on the retaliation standard, not about the details of your case, which were not available to me at the time I spoke to him. Therefore, while I did tell him about the aspects of the retaliation doctrine that are generally most difficult to prove, it is entirely inaccurate to suggest, as he does, that I told him I thought you might have a "hard time" winning your case. I hope he honors my request for a correction.)

ESPN Magazine Profiles Homophobia and Recruiting

Props to ESPN The Magazine, for publishing an excellent profile on role of homophobia in recruiting for women's college basketball. Here's the first paragraph, which describes an example of the problem:

On every top recruit's college visit, there comes the moment of the final pitch, when the head-spinning hoopla finally gives way to the business of basketball, when the high school girl steps away from the rah-rah of all the games and the ego-stroking of all the VIP intros to sit down with the head coach. During one teen's big moment, a heart-to-heart with Iowa State's Bill Fennelly, the decorated coach of 23 years sang an insistent refrain. "He kept drilling that 'this would be a family,'" says the player, who asked not to be named. "'You should come here,' he said, 'because we're family-oriented.'"

The article goes on to unpack the references to family and reveal them for the veiled homophobia they contain. Though it presents quotes from defenders of the term -- like Fennelly himself, who defends his right to sell what he thinks his program has to offer, and UConn's Geno Auriemma -- the input from coaches, players, and scholars presents a far more persuasive case that recruits and their families interpret the family rhetoric to be "cloaking" something else. Specifically, it is a suggestion that here, unlike other programs, you don't have to worry about lesbians coaches and teammates. Backing this up, the Magazine presents the results of its own survey of current and recent players, 55% of whom said that sexual orientation was an "underlying topic of conversation" in recruiting talks.

The article also makes a persuasive case for why this is bad for the game. Unlike other forms of negative recruiting, like suggestions that an opponent coach is violating rules, or planning to leave the program -- the lesbian variety is unique to the women's game, and is operating as what Professor Heather Barber calls "subtle weapon against programs led by unmarried female coaches." It is a major factor in the disproportionately low number of head coaching jobs held by women. Homophobia not only deters some women from going into coaching in the first place, the threat of a lesbian stigma also keeps women isolated and prevents them from forging mentor relationships and networks that are necessary for advancement in the coaching profession. It is even rumored to be the reason why the biggest powerhouse teams in the game, Tennessee (coached by an unmarried woman, Pat Summit) and Connecticut (coached by a married man, the aforementioned Auriemma) don't play a head-t0-head game anymore (though the article did not present any evidence to substantiate the rumor, only that the rumor exists). More importantly, it is oppressive to student athletes, like Emily Nkosi (nee Niemann) who played for Baylor until she couldn't stand the closet any more. She left Waco because in her words, "my internalized homophobia made me believe that if people found out I was gay, they would kill me."

Ending on a hopeful note, the article echoes coaches and others calling for better education and enforcement of recruiting violations, and a campaign to raise the ethical bar from within the coaching profession. More optimistically, it suggests that the changing cultural attitudes about lesbians will eventually catch up to athletics and render the lesbian stigma meaningless there too. Veiled homophobic references will backfire when they are addressed to recruits who are looking for team atmosphere that is open and affirming of their or their teammates' lesbian orientation.

Coach Sues University of Minnesota to Challenge Anti-gay Discrimination

Last week, former University of Minnesota women's golf coach Katie Brenny reportedly filed suit against the university and officials, arguing that she was forced to resign by anti-gay hostility in the athletic department. Brenny charges that the university violates the state of Minnesota's Human Rights Law, which unlike Title IX, covers discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Brenny alleges that though she was hired as associate head coach of the women's golf team, she was never permitted to carry out coaching duties, as she reassigned to administrative duties soon after arriving at the University, while the someone else took over the team. The University denies that it discriminated against Brenny, while Brenny argues that she is entitled to compensation for lost wages and the expense of finding another job, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, and distress.

Court Dismisses Retaliation Case Against University of Hawaii

Last month, a federal court in Hawaii dismissed the Title IX lawsuit filed by former women's basketball coach Jim Bolla against the University of Hawaii. As we noted when we first blogged about this case in 2009, Bolla claimed that the athletic director terminated his contract in retaliation for the coach's demands for gender equity, while the university claimed that the decision was lawfully motivated by Bolla's abusive conduct towards his players.

But a judge granted the university's motion for summary judgment after determining that Bolla did not establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title IX, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that he suffered some adverse employment action (here, termination) after engaging in protected activity, and that there is evidence to support that his termination was motivated by retaliation rather than a lawful, nondiscriminatory reason.

On the one hand, the court agreed that Bolla's claims to have discussed gender equity concerns with the athletic director (a claim that the university disputes as a matter of fact) sufficiently allege that he engaged in conduct that should be protected from retaliation. The court's reasoning on this point was significant, because it pointedly refused to import from First Amendment law the requirement that an employee be speaking in their personal capacity, rather than in their official capacity, for protection from retaliation to apply. Such an interpretation, which some courts have endorsed (erroneously, in my opinion) leaves coaches without protection from retaliation for just about anything they might say about Title IX as it applies to their team or their job, a position that the judge wisely recognized was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (ruling that Title IX prohibits retaliation against a coach who seeks to assert Title IX on behalf of his players).

On the other hand, the court acknowledged that the university articulated a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for terminating Bolla -- namely, the fact that he had kicked a player, which Bolla did not dispute other than to recharacterize it as "gently" tapping her "buttocks" with his foot. Moreover, Bolla failed to put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the university's stated reason for firing him was actually pretext for an actual motive of silencing his advocacy for gender equity. Bolla attempted to demonstrate this pretext by arguing that it represented a departure from the University's typical way of dealing with coaches' misconduct; specifically, he pointed out that the football coach was not terminated after he publicly made an offensive remark in using the word "faggoty" to describe the pre-game ritual of an opposing team (an incident my co-blogger wrote about here). But the court did not consider the football coach's situation to be comparable enough to Bolla's to have warranted a similar response. The football coach did not physically assault any player; nor, said the court, was there evidence that any members of his own team took offense at his remark. Since Bolla did not provide any evidence that the football coach's comment -- though offensive and certainly painted UH in a negative light -- rose to the level of verbal abuse (let alone, physical abuse, for which Bolla was fired), the university's decision to treat the coaches differently was not evidence that it was actually hiding its true motive of retaliation against him.


Decision: Bolla v. University of Hawaii, 2010 WL 5388008 (D. Hi. Dec. 16, 2010).

Ball State agrees to changes

Issues of gender inequity in Ball State University's Athletic Department have been actively discussed for almost five years now but the university, in an effort to end OCR's ongoing investigation of the department, has come out and said it will bring the equity to the department in 10 program areas, according to a Chronicle of Higher Education article this week. They have also agreed to investigate the departures of several coaches of women's teams. This is something we haven't really seen before. I don't know if we can truly consider this a voluntary move even if it was Ball State's idea. The cynic in me thinks it was a little CYA-ish; especially when I see that the athletic director has claimed publicly that there was no retaliatory coaching changes made during the past five years and that Ball State will not admit it was not in compliance with Title IX. Just about a year ago we reported that the firing of tennis coach Kathy Bull, who had served in the position for 22 years, was a little suspect. This all serves to fuel my healthy suspicion around internal investigations. But no doubt this case was a factor in Ball State's decision to put forward an image of transparency.