A federal judge from the Northern District of Texas has ruled in favor of a school district and a couple of its employees, who were sued by the parents of two female student athletes, who claimed that the school district and employees violated Title IX and then retaliated against their daughters after their parents filed the lawsuit.
While the court granted the employees’ motion to dismiss on both counts, it granted the school district’s motion to dismiss only as it related to count II (retaliation), withholding judgment of count I, pending the court’s decision on the plaintiffs’ recently filed motion to submit an amended complaint.
The plaintiffs, Kevin and Angie McCully, have two daughters that attend Henderson Junior High School, which is part of the Stephenville Independent School District (SISD). In September 2012, Kevin McCully began complaining about gender discrimination.
In summary, he alleged that female athletes at Henderson Junior High have fewer opportunities to participate in sports than boys. Furthermore, when they are allowed to participate, they experience inferior benefits, “such as non-traditional seasons, fewer coaches, inferior coaches, inadequate practice facilities, inferior locker rooms and other facilities, discriminatory practice times and schedules, inadequate publicity, different recruitment of girls, inadequate survey of girls to determine their interests, the discriminatory environment of the Quad County Conference, the discriminatory environment of the University Interscholastic League, stereotypical assumptions about the interests and abilities of female athletes, and allowing unequal support to the boys’ athletics through booster clubs, donations, and commercial agreements.”
McCully added in a statement that he and his wife “presented these issues to SISD administrators a year ago and have seen very few changes. We have been more than patient giving the district every opportunity to put a plan in place to correct the issues. The district has, on more than one occasion, agreed to make changes in writing only to retreat from the commitments. The failure to honor those commitments played no small part in our decision to file suit.”
The plaintiffs also alleged that the district and the individual defendants retaliated against them. Specifically, they charged that Joe and Rachel Carter, SISD employees, caused one of their daughters to be removed from a club basketball team. They claimed the Carters, who also had a daughter on the team, leveraged their position at SISD, since as employees they secured the district’s gymnasium at no cost for the team’s practices.
Shortly after the suit was filed, both sets of defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6. While the plaintiffs filed a response to SISD’s motion to dismiss, they never responded to the Carter defendants’ motion.
The court noted that two counts are alleged in the complaint. Count I is titled “Violation of Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972.8 901.20 U.S.C.§ 1681.” Count II is titled “Retaliation.” The court noted that “while the allegations in Count II failed to make reference to any statute, constitutional provision, or case law, a fair reading of Count II is that it is intended to assert a retaliation claim under the authority of Title IX.”
Addressing the allegations against the Carter defendants first, the court wrote that “while a retaliation claim can be brought on the basis of Title IX, see Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173-74, 125 S. Ct. 1497, 161 L. Ed. 2d 361 (2005), the Supreme Court has held that Title IX does not authorize a suit against school officials, teachers, and other individuals, see Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 257, 129 S. Ct. 788, 172 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2009).
“Summed up, no facts were pleaded in the complaint that would allow the court to infer that plaintiffs have a right of relief against the Carter defendants. Therefore, the claims asserted against the Carter defendants in their individual capacities are being dismissed with prejudice. The claims against the Carter defendants in their capacities as agents for Stephenville ISD must be dismissed because they are to be construed as claims against Stephenville ISD. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 87 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1985).”
The court next turned to the allegation leveled against the school district.
“The plaintiffs fare no better in their retaliation claim against the school district than they did in their claim against the Carter defendants,” it wrote. “No facts were alleged from which the court can infer that plaintiffs have a right of relief against Stephenville ISD based on a retaliation theory.
“There is no suggestion in the allegations of the complaint that the basketball team referenced in paragraph 37 was a team sponsored by Stephenville ISD; there is no suggestion that the person who removed (their daughter) from the basketball team, or the one who caused her to be removed, was acting on behalf of Stephenville ISD; nor, is there any suggestion in the facts alleged that any remarks made against (their daughter’s) participation on the team resulted from the complaints by plaintiffs or their father of actual or perceived gender discrimination by Stephenville ISD in violation of Title IX.
“… Even if they otherwise had legal significance, those allegations are not sufficient to allow the court to infer that the retaliation claim asserted by plaintiffs against Stephenville ISD is plausible. Therefore, the retaliation claim as against Stephenville ISD is being dismissed with prejudice.”
Kevin McCully v. Stephenville Independent School District, ET AL., N. D. Tex.: NO. 4:13-CV-702-A, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161835; 11/13/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Afton Jane Izen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bellaire, TX. (for defendant Stephenville Independent School District) Todd Aaron Clark, LEAD ATTORNEY, Walsh Anderson Brown Schulze & Aldridge, Austin, TX; Kelley Lynn Kalchthaler, Walsh Anderson Brown Gallegos & Green PC, Austin, TX; Meredith Prykryl Walker, Walsh Anderson Gallegos Green and Trevino PC, Irving, TX. (for individual defendants) Paul K Pearce, Jr, LEAD ATTORNEY, Timothy Allen Dunn, Matthews Stein Shiels Pearce Knott Eden & Davis, Dallas, TX.
