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.

No Summary Judgment for FGCU in Ex-Provost's Retaliation Case

Bonnie Yegidis, we've recently mentioned, is the last plaintiff with outstanding Title IX claims against Florida Gulf Coast University stemming from alleged 2007 mass retaliation against female coaches who complained to administration about gender inequity in the athletics department. To recap, Yegidis was the provost at the time, and tried to get the President to take the charges seriously. She also defended general counsel Wendy Morris, who was fired for similar efforts. In alleged response, President Wilson Bradshaw forced her to resign her administrative position.

FGCU recently moved for summary judgment on Yegidis's Title IX retaliation claim, but a federal judge in Florida ruled against the motion and allowed Yegidis's claim to proceed to trial. Specifically, the court agreed that Yegidis had produced evidence in support of the essential elements of a retaliation claim: that she engaged in protected activity by complaining about perceived discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in athletics, which bore a causal connection to her termination in that it occurred after Yegidis spoke to the then-incoming President about her concerns. This part of the opinion was significant for legal reasons, as it recognized that the First Amendment test for protected conduct, which requires employee to be speaking in the personal rather than professional capacity, is not applicable to Title IX claims (see related posts here and here). Also, Yegidis produced evidence to counter FGCU's stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination -- that she and others in the administration's senior management did not work well together. Specifically, the judge credited Yegidis's evidence that other members of dysfunctional management team who did not complain about the Title IX investigation were retained, that the President terminated her without ever addressing her Title IX concerns, and that her termination was not warranted by her credentials and job performance, as sufficient for a jury to find that the FGCU's stated reason was pretext for retaliation.

While the judge's decision did pave the way for trial on the retaliation claim, it was the end of the road for her claim that FGCU's sexually hostile environment also violated Title IX. Following the practice of other district courts in the 11th Circuit, the court held that the general federal employment discrimination statute, Title VII, provides the exclusive remedy for such claims, and Yegidis needed to have filed with the EEOC before bringing such a claim to federal court.

Decision: Yegidis v. FGCU, No. 2:09-CV-00353-CEH-DNF (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2011) (memorandum of order denying summary judgment).

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).

FGCU Trial On the Horizon

The Naples Daily News reports that the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Florida Gulf Coast University's former provost Bonnie Yegidis will soon go to trial. Yegidis has claimed that FGCU President Wilson Bradshaw forced her to resign her in retaliation for urging a thorough investigation of female coaches' Title IX concerns. Pretrial motions are scheduled for later this month, which will be followed by juror-selection and a two- to three-day trial.

At one time, four lawsuits had been filed against FGCU arising out of the university's response to coaches' allegations of sex discrimination in athletics. But the university settled with former coaches Jaye Flood ($2.96 million) and Holly Vaughn ($435,000), as well as former university counsel Wendy Morris ($800,000). Yegidis's lawsuit is the only one that is still heading towards trial. In light of the earlier settlements, it will be interesting to see what a jury decides on the questions of the university's liability and damages.