A former student athlete at the University of Pittsburgh can proceed with her various legal claims against the university, student athletes, coaches and other officials, after a federal judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The impetus for the lawsuit was a December 1, 2010 fight in the locker room involving plaintiff Brittany M. Thomas and co-defendant Jania Sims, a teammate. Specifically, Thomas claimed that after a loss at St. Francis University, the team entered the locker room where co-defendant Agnus Berenato, the head coach, began a team meeting.
After the meeting, Thomas claimed that Sims “got up from her seat, crossed the locker room” and approached her “in a threatening manner.” A fight ensued, with Sims allegedly sucker punching the plaintiff.
Berenato returned to the locker room, and a confrontation between the coach and the plaintiff ensued. The plaintiff alleged that Berenato shoved her forearm into the plaintiff’s throat, pushing her into the lockers and causing her to have difficulty breathing.
On December 2, 2010, the plaintiff was allegedly contacted by Berenato via text message to talk with the coaching staff. The plaintiff met with staff, all of whom blamed her for the incident, according to the complaint. The next day, she had a second meeting with the coaching staff and Senior Associate Athletic Director Carol Sprague. It was at the latter meeting that the plaintiff was suspended indefinitely. The plaintiff alleged in a subsequent complaint that her dismissal “stands in stark contrast to the treatment of certain male athletes who, although criminally charged with assault or harassment, were permitted to remain at the University as student athletes with all associated benefits and privileges intact.”
The plaintiff ultimately filed a civil rights and tort action against Sims, the University of Pittsburgh, Berenato and the assistant coaches.
The defendants moved to dismiss.
The court first considered the plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages. “Punitive damages are an extreme remedy available in only the most exceptional matters,” wrote the court. “Punitive damages may be appropriately awarded only when the plaintiff has established that the defendant has acted in an outrageous fashion due to either the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. A defendant acts recklessly when his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another and such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.
Seneca Ins. Co. v. Beale, No. 13-1737, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27878, 2014 WL 868928 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2014).
“Therefore, ‘a showing of mere negligence, or even gross negligence, will not suffice to establish that punitive damages should be imposed. Rather, the plaintiff must adduce evidence which goes beyond a showing of negligence, evidence sufficient to establish that the defendant’s acts amounted to intentional, willful, wanton or reckless conduct….’” Id. See also Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339, 192 A.2d 355, 358 (Pa. 1963).
The court agreed with the plaintiff that it was “premature” to dismiss her claims for punitive damages.
The court turned next to the claim arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983. In such instances, a plaintiff must allege “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988).
“In this case, the plaintiff alleges Section 1983 claims against (Athletic Director Steve) Pederson and the University for the violation of her statutory rights under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” wrote the court.
The plaintiff’s argument withstood the motion, according to the court. The “alleged disparity in discipline based upon gender and exemplified by (her) identification of specific instances of male athletes, who were subject to the same disciplinary policy, and who allegedly committed assaults, is sufficient to state an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
In the alternative, Pederson sought protection from the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1982)).
The court concluded that Perderson, in the age of heightened awareness of gender equity, should have been “cognizant of his statutory obligation not to implement different disciplinary enforcement standards for male and female athletes. Disciplinary decisions affect a student athlete’s ability to continue participation in a chosen sport, maintain scholarships, and complete an undergraduate education. Pederson knows or should know that discrimination based on gender in state university athletics, affecting each of these benefits, has been prohibited by law since 1972, or at the latest, 1988. At this stage of the litigation, it is apparent therefore that Defendant Pederson is not entitled to qualified immunity.”
Next up was the plaintiff’s Title IX claim. Thomas “identifies four specific instances where the University’s Athletic Department declined to suspend a male athlete after being charged with assault and several other examples where male athletes were criminally charged for other offenses and yet not suspended. The plaintiff alleges that Sims also received harsher punishment by being suspended after the assault, when there are examples of male athletes who have not been suspended after committing similar acts. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts regarding the University’s disparate treatment of females and males relating to disciplinary procedures to sustain a Title IX claim.”
Finally, the plaintiff was also successful in squelching the defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the defamation and false light claims.
Brittaney M. Thomas v. University of Pittsburgh et al.; W.D. Pa.; Civil Action No.13-514, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90699; 7/3/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) John R. Orie, Jr., Jonathan A. Orie, Matthew E. Orie, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Orie, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA. (for defendants) James F. Glunt, LEAD ATTORNEY, April T. Dugan, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA; Shannon H. Paliotta, LEAD ATTORNEY, University of Pittsburgh, Office of General Counsel, Pittsburgh, PA.
