Ninth Circuit Reinstates Grad Student's Retaliation Case

Monica Emeldi, a graduate student in the University of Oregon's Department of Education, sued her institution under Title IX after the faculty chair of her dissertation committee resigned in ostensible retaliation for her complaints about gender equity within the department. A federal district court had earlier granted summary judgment in favor of the university, but yesterday, an appellate panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and reinstated her case.

According the Ninth Circuit's analysis, Emeldi satisfied the basic elements of a retaliation case under Title IX, including that she engaged in "protected conduct" when she presented a memo to department officials summarizing graduate students' complaints about the department's bias towards male graduate students and failure to hire female faculty members. Soon thereafter, Horner, the chair of her dissertation committee resigned, a consequence that the court agreed was a consequence that a jury could find "materially adverse" that "might have dissuaded a reasonable [person] from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."

Last, the court determined that Emeldi presented sufficient evidence on which a jury could conclude that Horner's resignation was related to her complaint, including evidence of the proximity in time between Horner's resignation and Emeldi's complaint, that Horner knew about Emeldi's complaint, Horner's gender bias in other contexts, such as favoritism to male graduate students, that Horner resigned without helping Emeldi secure a replacement chair, that Horner had in the past praised Emeldi's work, which suggests that Horner did not resign for nondiscriminatory reasons that he claimed, and that Emeldi was unable to find a replacement chair even after asking fifteen other members of the department.

One judge, however, dissented from the majority's conclusion that Emeldi's case should have a chance to reach a jury, basing his objection primary on Emeldi's failure to provide corroborating evidence by other witnesses and relying instead on her own affidavits and testimony. The dissent concludes, "Title IX's worthy antidiscrimination objectives notwithstanding, to let Ms. Emeldi's claims go to a jury will serve only as a precedent-setting example of how little it takes to turn a failed supervisory relationship between a professor and his Ph.D. candidate into a federal case of gender discrimination."

Emeldi v. Univ. of Oregon, 2012 WL 933821 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2012).

Retaliation Case Against Florida School District Survives Motion to Dismiss

In Florida, a federal district court judge has denied the Citrus County School Board's motion to dismiss claims filed by students who allege they were retaliated against after one of them reported that she was "offended and uncomfortable" by sexual behavior of their soccer coaches. As we noted in an earlier post, the case began when a female high school soccer player named Stacey Bigge and her teammate known in the complaint as A.M. reported to their parents that they were uncomfortable with their coaches' tendencies to make sexual comments, which included remakes about players' physicality and genitalia, and that on one occasion, a coach pulled down a player's pants. After their parents reported this conduct to school district officials, the coaches became threatening and intimidating to Stacey and A.M., interrogating them in front of their teammates and threatening to disband the team because of what they did. Eventually, the players quit to avoid this hostility. Later, Stacey and her sister Kathryn Bigge were ordered to be transferred to another high school after the coaches then told the school officials that the Bigges lived outside the district. This transfer order was rescinded after the Bigges' father supplied proof of residency.

Both Bigge sisters sued Citrus County School Board, alleging that the threat to transfer them to another high school was retaliation for Stacey's complaints about the coaches' harassing conduct. The school board argued that Kathryn Bigge's claim for damages on this retaliation theory should be dismissed because she was not the person who engaged in the requisite "protected conduct" by complaining about the coaches' behavior, her sister was. But the court rejected this argument, applying the Supreme Court's recent decision in an employment law case that a whistleblower's fiance could challenge the retaliation directed at him in response to the whistleblower's complaint about sex discrimination on the job. The judge concluded that the threats against Kathryn were actionable on a theory of retaliation because it was "reasonable to infer that the School Board’s threat to transfer Kathryn Bigge to another school district (a threat that was allegedly made in direct response to the Plaintiffs’ complaints) would dissuade her father and sister from making any further charges of discrimination and/or retaliation."

The case is scheduled for a jury trial in February 2013.

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)

Slippery Rock Settles Retaliation Suit

Slippery Rock University has settled on undisclosed terms the retaliation case filed against it by two female athletics officials, which we had earlier blogged about here. The plaintiffs had alleged that their employment contracts were not renewed in retaliation for their cooperation in an earlier lawsuit against the university that challenged the athletic department's compliance with Title IX.

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.

Florida High School Reinstates Coach After Retaliation

In June, school officials at Jensen Beach High School in Martin County, Florida, terminated girls' lacrosse coach Michele Ruth, who had advocated for her team's access to the district's best athletic facility, the stadium built for the football team, but which is otherwise used during the spring lacrosse season. This week it was reported that the school district agreed to a settlement with Ruth to keep her from filing a lawsuit. As part of the settlement, Ruth is reinstated to her coaching position, and the girls lacrosse team will have their home games in the stadium. The settlement agreement (available here) also provides that the district will reimburse Ruth's attorneys, including Linda Correia and the law firm Public Justice.

Reportedly, the district had claimed that it terminated Ruth for coaching without shoes, in violation of a school policy necessitated by the dangerous condition of the field used for lacrosse, due to the presence of "glass and nails and snakes." Two problems with this explanation probably influenced the district's decision to settle rather than face a jury: first, the coach's shoes only became an issue after she raised the Title IX implications of the athletic director's decision to exclude the lacrosse team from the stadium, and thus appear to be pretextual. Second, the unsafe conditions of the field, which the district would have to emphasize as part of its defense, not only underscore Ruth's request to play in the stadium, but raise separate questions of liability, including under Title IX.

One local columnist is calling Ruth a role model to her students for having the "courage and conviction to stand her ground."

Former Coach Settles Claim for Retaliation Over Scheduling Complaint

By personal correspondence from a source close to the case, I've learned that former girls' basketball coach Amber Parker has settled her lawsuit against the Franklin County (Indiana) Community School District, in which she claimed she was retaliated against for filing a lawsuit against the Indiana High School Athletic Association to challenge the inequitable scheduling of girls' basketball games. The district will pay Parker $28,500 to drop the retaliation suit that alleges the district failed to renew her teaching and coaching contracts to punish Parker for her advocacy for equity in scheduling. My correspondent suggests that Parker was seeking comparatively modest compensatory damages, which suggests that the district was willing to pay a premium to keep the case from a jury.

Parker's lawsuit against the IHSAA, which has been handed off to another plaintiff in light of Parker's relocation to another state, is not affected by the settlement. Recall that a district court determined that the IHSAA did not violate Title IX by scheduling girls basketball games for fewer Friday night games, and that decision is on appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.

Texas Southern Coach Wins $700,000 in Retaliation Case

A jury in federal court in Texas awarded over $700,000 to Surina Dixon, a former coach at Texas Southern University who had sued the school for retaliation and discrimination in violation of Title IX and other law.



As we noted when the case was first filed, Dixon claimed that she fired her from the head women's basketball coach position to which she had recently been hired after she insisted on parity in the terms of her employment contract, noting specifically that a recently-hired men's basketball coach with less experience than Dixon received a longer contract and higher salary. She had also complained that TSU glossed over gender inequities in its NCAA Gender Equity Self-Study.

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.

Slippery Rock back in legal trouble

Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania is back in legal hot water again. (Click on the Slippery Rock tag for more on the history of Title IX lawsuits and settlements.)
This time a lawsuit is being brought by two women who are claiming retaliation over their participation in the initial lawsuits, which lead to SRU having to reinstate three women's teams that had been cut.
The first plaintiff is the women's volleyball coach who was told her contract will not be renewed when it ends in 2013.
The second woman is an assistant to the athletic director who says she has been overloaded with work and left out of department meetings she otherwise would have been a part of.
The lawsuit alleges that the retaliation is also due to the fact that the athletic director, Paul Lueken, cannot work with strong women.

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).

Court Dismisses Sexual Harassment, Retaliation Case Against Hofstra

Last month, a federal court in New York awarded summary judgment to Hofstra University, dismissing claims of sexual harassment and retaliation that had been filed by Lauren Summa, former student manager of the football team. Summa, you’ll recall from prior posts, alleged that she was sexually harassed by members of the football team on bus rides to away games and in other contexts. She also claimed that she was not rehired for the manager position or for a grad assistant position elsewhere in the university as retaliation for complaining about the incidents to the coach and others.

The court analyzed Summa’s sexual harassment claims under Title VII as well as Title IX, after concluding that as a student manager she was an employee within the meaning of the employment discrimination law. The court determined that several of the events Summa included in her description of a “hostile environment” consisted of “gender neutral” harassment -- that is, not motivated by her sex -- and thus did not qualify as sexual harassment. For instance, the court described an incident when football players holding shut the door while she was in the bus bathroom as “boorish” and “immature,” but not motivated by sex. Also, the screening of a movie with sexual themes on the team bus did not count as sexual harassment because there was no evidence that it was shown to target Summa. The fact that players responded to Summa’s complaint about the movie (which prompted the coach to turn it off) by shouting “we want boobies” and that one of them yelled at Summa to “sit down and shut … up,” while gender-motivated, did not “by itself” evidence of a severe and pervasive hostile environment.

As my employment discrimination students know well, there’s a lot of subjectivity in the “severe or pervasive” standard in sexual harassment law. Had I been the judge, I would have likely viewed Summa being physically entrapped in the bathroom of a bus full of hostile football players as not only severe, but also gender-related given that none of the men on the bus were apparently subjected to that kind of intimidation. Moreover, while the court concludes that Hofstra responded appropriately to the incidents of harassment that Summa reported (for example, the football player who yelled at Summa after the movie incident was suspended from the team by operation of the coach’s third strike policy) there is no indication that the coaching staff addressed the bus bathroom incident or the “we want boobies” chant which also would have rated with me as evidence of hostile, sexual harassment.

For a variety of reasons, the court also rejected Summa’s claims that she was retaliated against by the University for complaining about the harassment she experienced in her position as student manager. According to the court, Summa did not demonstrate that the person in charge of hiring student managers had knowledge of her complaints, a required element for any retaliation claim. The court also accepted Hofstra’s articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to deny her a graduate assistant position, one relating to certain misstatements on her resume, which Summa did not demonstrate to be pretext of a retaliatory motive.

Decision is: Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 2011 WL 1343058 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.7, 2011).

Former coach files separate lawsuit

Amber Parker, the former coach of the girls' high school basketball team in Franklin County, Indiana, has filed a lawsuit against the district alleging that the non-renewal of her teaching and coaching contract was due to her other lawsuit claiming disparity in scheduling of girls' and boys' basketball games. Parker had to "hand off" that lawsuit when she moved to Massachusetts (to those who had standing in the case as parents of current players). It is currently under appeal in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Parker is claiming that her firing was a direct result of her public comments (and subsequent lawsuit) about the disparities in scheduling and that the superintendent told a school board member that he wanted Parker fired. The complaint also notes that the contracts of two other varsity coaches were renewed the year Parker was let go even though their teams had worse records.

Yegidis Seeks New Trial

The Naples Daily News is reporting that former FGCU Provost Bonnie Yegidis is moving for a new trial. Last month, a jury concluded that her removal from the provost position was not retaliation for her role in challenging sex discrimination in the university's athletics program. But Yegidis is arguing that the judge's decisions in advance of trial to limit certain witnesses' testimony were improper and influenced the jury's verdict. In particular, the judge limited the testimony of key witnesses Merrily Dean Baker, the former athletics director, and Wendy Morris, the former general counsel, who like Yegidis both encouraged university president to meaningfully investigate coaches' claims of discrimination against women's sports and female coaches. The judge limited the testimony out of concern that the coaches' and Morris's lawsuits, which produced six and seven-figure settlements, could improperly bias the jury against FGCU. But Yegidis's motion for a new trial raises the argument that these restrictions went too far and resulted in an incomplete picture of Yegidis's perception of discrimination and her role in challenging it -- both crucial elements to a retaliation claim.

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.)

Jury Finds for FGCU in Retaliation Case

Today it's reported that after 2 1/2 hours of deliberation, a federal court jury in Florida found that Florida Gulf Coast University did not violate Title IX's prohibition on retaliation when President Wilson Bradshaw demoted Bonnie Yegidis from her position as provost. Specifically, the jury found that Yegidis did not present enough evidence to prove the first required element for a retaliation claim, that she engaged in protected conduct by blowing the whistle on discrimination. Yegidis had alleged that she was fired for urging the President to take seriously the complaints about Title IX violations presented by the university's female coaches. This article in the Naples Daily News suggests that the jury might not have seen her as whistleblower because FGCU presented evidence that Bradshaw already knew about the Title IX concerns and Yegidis was not telling him things that others weren't already.

Yegidis, who is now a Professor of Social Work at the University of South Florida, has not said whether she plans to appeal the verdict. She did tell the press that she's disappointed in the verdict and hopes that it doesn't "send a message to people -- to men and women -- that they can't bring cases forward."

Yegidis v. FGCU Day 1

In a Florida federal court, a trial began Tuesday in the Title IX retaliation case between Florida Gulf Coast University and its former provost Bonnie Yegidis, who was fired from the position, she alleges, because she urged the president to take seriously coaches' allegations of gender discrimination in athletics. According to press, FGCU President Wilson Bradshaw testified consistent with the university's defense that Yegidis was fired instead for being part of an ineffective "hornets' nest" of a senior management team. While acknowledging her positive evaluations and past performance, he nevertheless characterized Yegidis as "such a disruptive force that I had to take action."

Former Athletic Director Merrily Dean Baker also took the stand and described her role in underlying Title IX dispute, meeting with female coaches and compiling their concerns about discrimination in a letter to Bradshaw's predecessor, Richard Pegnetter.