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).