A federal judge from the Northern District of Illinois has found that a basketball coach, who also served as an athletic director, failed to present enough evidence that a school district opted not to renew his contract because of his age.
Plaintiff Steve Sandholm began working for the Dixon Public School District No. 170 as a head basketball coach and PE teacher at Dixon High School in the 1999-2000 schoolyear. Six years later, he became its athletic director, giving up his teaching position, while remaining a coach.
On Sept. 5, 2007, the plaintiff submitted his irrevocable letter of retirement stating he would retire after the 2010-11 school year. This irrevocable letter of retirement entitled him to 6 percent raises per year until his retirement. The parties disputed whether this 6 percent placed a cap on his maximum earnings from all sources, including special events he ran, or only applied to his base salary. “Taking the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, he was entitled to 6 percent annual increases on his base salary and was still allowed to earn extra money from running special events,” wrote the court.
The plaintiff’s status as coach began disintegrating during the 2007-08 school year. Eventually, a parent named Richard Kuecker approached Michael Grady, the high school principal, with complaints about the plaintiff’s coaching, sideline decorum and detrimental conduct toward the team. More parents jumped on board, seeking the coach’s ouster.
On March 19, 2008, a large number of people attended a school board meeting to speak about the plaintiff’s performance as coach. At that meeting, after meeting in executive session, the board declared that it intended to retain the plaintiff as coach for the next school year but would hold him to a “code of conduct.” Some parents were upset by the board’s decision to implement a code of conduct instead of not renewing the plaintiff’s coaching contract.
About a month later, on April 22, 2008, the superintendent met with the plaintiff and told him he had decided to let him go. The plaintiff testified in his deposition that he asked why. The superintendent allegedly told him that Kuecker and others wanted a younger coach. The superintendant disputed the statement.
Adding fuel to the plaintiff’s ire was a comment made by a search committee member, after they made a new hire, that the committee “liked that he’s a fairly young guy” and “we think he can bring some new methods and new ways of teaching that the kids in the program can relate to.” The court noted that the search committee had no say in the decision to non-renew the plaintiff’s coaching contract.
At a March 18, 2009 meeting, the board decided not to renew the plaintiff’s contract as athletic director, basing it on the interim superintendent’s letter to the plaintiff, which stated “the Board has lost confidence in you as Athletic Director due to your negative relationships with coaches, parents and the community.”
The plaintiff sued, basing its claim on the ADEA, which required that he demonstrate that “age was the determinative factor.” Lindsey v. Walgreen Co., 615 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 2010).
The search committee’s remark that the committee wanted a younger coach “does not establish that the board decided not to renew the plaintiff because of his age,” wrote the court.” No other evidence points to age as a factor. Substantial undisputed evidence shows public pressure about the plaintiff’s coaching methods was the reason.”
The plaintiff also claimed he was terminated from his position as athletic director, a position in which he claims a protected property interest, without due process of law.
The court thought differently: “Any contractual right creating a property interest for a school administrator creates a property interest in the ‘office’s emoluments but not the office itself.’ Batagiannis v. West Lafayette Community School Corp., 454 F.3d 738, 740 (7th Cir. 2006).
Steve Sandholm v. The Dixon Public School District; N.D. Ill.; No. 170, et al., 09 C 50119, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24921; 3/10/11
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Erie DeNeal Johnson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Stephen T. Fieweger, Katz, Huntoon & Fieweger, P.C., Moline, IL. (for defendant) Carolyn Brechon, James Hey, Thomas Balser, Woody Lenox, Defendants: John E. Cassidy, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, David B. Mueller, Cassidy & Mueller, Peoria, IL.
