A federal judge from the District of Hawaii has effectively dismissed the retaliation claim of the former head coach of the University of Hawaii women’s basketball team, who complained of gender inequities between the men’s and women’s basketball programs at UH.
In granting the motions for summary judgment from both the individual defendants and UH, the court found that the individual defendants possessed governmental immunity, while UH demonstrated enough valid reasons for terminating the plaintiff.
Hawaii hired James A. Bolla In 2004. Three years later, the school extended his contract an additional four years.
In March 2008, UH hired defendant James Donovan as its new athletic director. Shortly thereafter, Donovan met with the head coaches of the various sports to discuss what they needed to make their programs successful. Bolla alleged that he told Donovan at this meeting that he wanted the women’s basketball program to be put on equal footing with the men’s basketball program, in compliance with Title IX. He wanted things like a secretary, more coaches, increased budget, the ability to use buses instead of cars, and summer school for the student-athletes.
Donovan claimed that, shortly after his meeting with Bolla, he began hearing complaints from student-athletes about Bolla’s conduct as a coach. On April 30, 2008, Donovan appointed UH human resources specialists to do a fact-finding investigation regarding those complaints. Donovan claimed that he told Bolla about the investigation and that he was expected to cooperate.
On July 30, 2008, the specialists submitted a report to Donovan about the complaints. This report contained six letters from student-athletes detailing their complaints against Bolla and noted that some of these complaints had been made to the previous athletic director’s administration but had not been responded to. The report included some extremely complimentary descriptions of Bolla. Some of those complimentary descriptions indicated that the student-athlete complaints were really about Bolla’s coaching style, which had a history of being effective.
On August 22, 2008, after reviewing the fact-finding report, Donovan issued a written reprimand to Bolla. Among other things, Donovan reviewed Bolla’s offer to change a student’s scholarship from an athletic scholarship to a manager’s scholarship based on the student’s pregnancy. Donovan informed Bolla that, even if Bolla was trying to help the student, a coach could not make such a change and that Bolla should have left the matter to the student. Donovan cautioned Bolla against further unauthorized discussions and reviews of student-athletes’ medical conditions. Donovan reprimanded Bolla for inappropriate remarks concerning sexual orientation and for threatening to kick a student-athlete off the team for something her parent had said. Donovan said that, if Bolla entered the women’s locker room without first checking to see whether everyone was dressed, that conduct was also improper. Finally, Bolla was reprimanded for “verbal abuse and manipulation” of student-athletes. Donovan told Bolla “that any further inappropriate and unprofessional behavior and conduct will not be tolerated. If such violations ever occur again, I will immediately take appropriate corrective action, up to and including discharge.”
In January 2009, Bolla was interviewed by Dave Reardon, a reporter for a daily Honolulu newspaper. Bolla said that he spoke to Reardon in his capacity as the women’s head basketball coach at UH. Bolla said that, in answer to Reardon’s questions, he complained about UH’s failure to provide gender equity in the women’s basketball program. However, Reardon’s published articles contained no mention of that. However, he did include quotes from Bolla criticizing the lack of support.
In January 27, 2009, Donovan reprimanded Bolla for his criticism about the public comments. Bolla was told not to say anything further that could be construed as inflammatory to the general public or ultimately derogatory about the UH athletics department.”
In early 2009, Donovan received a complaint from a student-athlete who said that, during a 2008 practice, Bolla kicked her in the buttocks hard enough to move her several feet.
On February 6, 2009, Donovan appointed UH human resource specialists to perform another investigation. On February 9, 2009, without yet having the written report, Donovan suspended Bolla with pay.
On or about March 5, 2009, the specialists issued a report describing the alleged kick and additionally noting that, during the course of the investigation, they had learned that Bolla had told other student athletes: “If that were me, I would have broken your f***ing arm” and “You can take that one-handed pass and shove it up your a**.” Bolla was also said to have told a student that she needed to go to a psychologist and another that she should be tested for Attention Deficit Disorder.
Donovan said that he believed the 2009 report was accurate. On or about March 13, 2009, Donovan wrote to Bolla to say that, based on the report’s summary of Bolla’s statements and the “kick,” he was concluding that Bolla had acted unprofessionally, inappropriately, and even violently. According to Donovan, because Bolla had previously been reprimanded and told that further violations would result in appropriate corrective actions, Donovan terminated Bolla.
Bolla sued, claiming he was punished more severely than other coaches for similar conduct. He argued that the individual Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his exercise of his Title IX rights. Bolla argued that the school had violated Title IX in retaliating against him for his gender inequity complaints.
The first argument failed for a couple of reasons, the most significant of which may have been that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity 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,” wrote the court, citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009). “Bolla’s factual allegations fail to make out a violation of a constitutional right.”
As for the claim against UH, the court found for the plaintiff since, “Bolla fails to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether UH’s proffered reasons for terminating him were pretextual.”
James A. Bolla v. University Of Hawaii et al.; D. Hawaii.; CIV. NO. 09-00165 SOM/LEK; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134143; 12/16/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) R. Steven Geshell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Honolulu, HI. (for defendants) John-Anderson L. Meyer, Kenneth S. Robbins, Sergio Rufo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Robbins & Associates, Honolulu, HI.
