A federal judge in the District of Delaware has delivered a partial victory to Delaware State University (DSU), which was sued by a student athlete for Title VI claims of racial discrimination, racially hostile environment, and retaliation.
Specifically, the court granted the school’s motion for summary judgment as it pertained to the racial discrimination and racially hostile environment claims. But it denied the motion as to the retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff Sara Elliott engaged in protected activity accusing her coach of racism, and that there appeared to be a “causal link” to the coach’s actions.
Elliot, a California native, left home to attend Delaware State University on a volleyball scholarship in August of 2007. Elliott moved into university housing and shared a suite with three other athletes and two non-athletes. Soon after, she allegedly began having problems with her non-athlete black suitemate, Kristen Williams.
In one incident, Williams allegedly brought three intoxicated African-American men into the suite, who allegedly racially abused Elliott and another white suitemate, stating, “If I ever see these white bitches around campus, they’re done! I swear to God these stupid white bitches don’t know who they’re messing with. … These white girls know nothing, they probably called again and you all know your attitude, so you better leave for tonight.” Two days later, Elliott formally complained to Residential Director Christopher Hall.
“Williams’ hostility toward Elliott and the other white suitemates continued in the following weeks,” wrote the court in citing the complaint. The controversy ultimately escalated to Head Volleyball Coach Renee Arnold and Athletic Director Derek Carter.
In the spring of 2010, Arnold informed Elliott that her scholarship was not being renewed due to budget cuts. The scholarship of another player, who was black, was also not being renewed.
“At deposition, Arnold admitted that the volleyball scholarship budget was not actually cut,” wrote the court. “Arnold then stated that the two women’s scholarships were to be terminated because they had poor attitudes, were not coachable, and did not fit into the philosophy of the team. She later added that Elliott was not a skillful enough player.”
Carter overruled Arnold’s decision to not renew Elliott’s scholarship. He also informed Arnold that Elliott thought she was a racist and was suing DSU.
“Coach Arnold soon announced to the entire team, outside of Elliott’s presence, that the only reason Elliott was back on the team was because Elliott accused Arnold of being a racist and was going to sue the school,” wrote the court. “In June 2010, Elliott’s profile was removed from the team Website and Elliott was excluded from team text messages. Elliott faced disproportionate punishment at practice; the entire team would be forced to run when Elliott made mistakes. This did not occur when other players made errors. In August 2010, Elliott was told she could not travel with the team because of travel expenses.” Elliott played in October 2010 for a few minutes in a single game of the 39-game season.
“In February 2011, Elliott and one other volleyball player were summoned for drug testing,” wrote the court. “The other player was black. Despite being drug tested for five hours, Elliott was unable to give an adequate urine sample. Elliott and the other player were forced to come back the next day for more testing. They were tested for three and a half hours until they finally gave adequate urine samples, which ended up testing positive for drugs.”
The plaintiff sued, alleging a Title VI discrimination claim, and the defendant moved for summary judgment.
“To avoid summary judgment, Elliott must make a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing material facts in support of the following: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified to continue in pursuit of her education; (3) she was treated differently from similarly situated students who were not members of the protected class; and (4) she suffered an adverse action,” wrote the court citing Underwood v. La Salle Univ., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88959, 2007 WL 4245737, *6 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
The plaintiff satisfied the first two elements, but stumbled on the third.
“Elliott … provides no facts suggesting that this mistreatment was rooted in race discrimination,” wrote the court. Arnold may have mishandled the termination of Elliott’s scholarship. But “it does not follow, however, that every time a college sports coach treats an athlete of a different race unfairly, material facts support an inference of discrimination. This is especially true in circumstances where the coach treated both the white and the black athlete the same, whether it was in the context of attempting to deny renewal of a scholarship or in the context of drug testing. Without an indication that Arnold favored black players over Elliott specifically and the other white players generally, or some other suggestion that Arnold’s animus toward Elliott was racially based, Elliott does not make a prima facie case of racial discrimination.”
The court also found shortcomings in Elliott’s racially hostile environment claim.
“These are the only two incidents of overt racial abuse suffered by Elliott,” wrote the court. “To be sure, Elliott was required to endure an uncomfortable living situation for a period of at least 22 days in September 2009. This period of time, however, was relatively short, and did not involve physical violence or imminent threats of physical violence. Elliott has not established severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment to survive summary judgment on her racially hostile environment claim. See Hendrichsen v. Ball State Univ., 107 Fed. App’x. 680, 684 (7th Cir. 2004).”
The court was more receptive to the plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
“Elliott has established facts supporting a retaliation claim based on Arnold’s actions,” wrote the court. “Although Elliott does not link Arnold’s harsh treatment with the complaints Elliott made to Hall, there is evidence that Arnold ratcheted up the pressure on Elliott after hearing that Elliott had directly accused Arnold of racism.”
“… In a direct response to this protected activity, Arnold stood in front of the volleyball team and verbally denounced Elliott, declaring that Elliott was only on the team because Elliott accused Arnold of being a racist and because Elliott was going to sue the school. Elliott made factually specific declarations suggesting that Arnold’s treatment harshened subsequent to Arnold’s denouncement. These events provide both the protected activity and the ‘causal link’ necessary for establishing a retaliation claim.”
Sara Elliott v. Delaware State University; D. Del.; C.A. 10-844-RGA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103600; 7/25/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Michael G. Rushe, Esq., Dover, Delaware; Mark B. Frost, Esq. (argued), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (for defendant) James D. Taylor, Jr., Esq. (argued), Wilmington, Delaware; Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware.
