A federal judge from the Eastern District of Michigan has granted Central Michigan University’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case in which two student athletes sued the school for violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title IV of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Specifically, they alleged that they were discriminated against based on their race and sexual preference when their athletic scholarships were not renewed. But the court found that res judicata comes into play, because their claims for the most part, had already been addressed in earlier litigation. In essence, “res judicata extinguishes a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant even though the plaintiff is seeking remedies or forms of relief not demanded in the first action.”
Lead Plaintiff Brooke Heike, began competing on the women’s basketball team during the 2006-07 season. Immediately after that season came to a close, the incumbent coach was fired, ushering in a new coach – Sue Guevara.
Under Guevara, the team struggled the next season, winning only six games.
In April 2007, before Guevara had witnessed the plaintiff practice, Heike alleged that she met with Guevara, who told her that she did not want the plaintiff to wear make-up. She further alleged that Guevara subjected her to unwelcome harassment and discipline throughout the 2007-08 season, such as repeatedly telling the plaintiff that she was not her “type” of person. The plaintiff alleged that Guevara’s comments led her to believe that Guevara did not consider her to be her “type” of person because she identified herself as heterosexual and wore make-up, which the plaintiff perceived that Guevara deemed to be “an unacceptable heterosexual behavior.” The plaintiff alleged that Guevara repeatedly attempted to force her to transfer to another college or university.
After a confrontation with the coach at practice, which allegedly made her physically ill, she was examined by a medical doctor, who instructed by note that she not attend practice on December 15, 2007. Despite the note, Guevara told the assistant coaches and team members that she had kicked the plaintiff out of practice.
On March 13, 2008, the plaintiff alleged that Coach Guevara told her that she was eliminating her from the team and stripping her of her scholarship. Later, Coach Guevara allegedly told the team that the plaintiff had been removed from the team because she was “unhappy,” and not because of any deficiency on the part of the plaintiff or anything having to do with the plaintiff’s ability or capacity to improve her skills.
On April 7, 2008, the plaintiff submitted a written request for a hearing and set forth the reasons why she believed the defendants had unfairly deprived her of her scholarship and education.
An appeal hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2008, in order to determine “if the action to not renew Ms. Heike’s athletics aid for the 2008-2009 academic year was a substantial injustice.”
Meanwhile, the coach began building a case for why the plaintiff’s sub-par basketball skills and lack of willingness to work were the impetus for the decision. Specifically, the coach wrote in a letter that the plaintiff “consistently struggles to understand key basketball concepts. This was reinforced by the secondary role that she played in all basketball practice activities.” Guevara further wrote, “What is most disconcerting is that Brooke never appeared to strive for success,” that “even though Brooke was failing to meet these expectations, she did not seek additional help or assistance,” and “she appeared to be very satisfied with her deficiencies.”
In comparison, Guevara wrote, “A number of those members of the team who were underachieving throughout the year demanded additional time from coaches to help them with the process of improvement. These individuals continue to be members of the team.” Guevara further wrote that Plaintiff was “kicked out of practice” on both December 14 and 15, 2007, “for lack of effort, poor body language, and bad attitude overall . . . this stemmed from her consistently missing sprint times and not grasping basic concepts essential to the completion of conditioning drills.”
On June 11, 2008, the plaintiff appeared before the appeals committee at the CMU Office of Scholarship and Financial Aid for a hearing, which the plaintiff claimed was contentious. She was denied relief.
Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff sued. Several judicial opinions followed, addressing many of the claims in the original and amended complaint. Some of those decisions can be found in the Sports Litigation Alert archive. The instant opinion deals with the plaintiff’s discrimination claim as it relates to the appeals process.
Heike alleged that she “made clear to the Appeals Committee that she believed she was being singled out for disparate, discriminatory treatment and abusive wrongful sexual harassment because of her race, color and heterosexuality, and that she has suffered because of defendants’ wrongful treatment of her.”
Heike alleges that the Appeals Committee “did not consider whether she had suffered a substantial injustice or whether Coach Guevara’s decision was reasonable, but instead ‘rubber-stamped’ the decision to not renew Heike’s athletic scholarship and dismissed her from the team.” Further, the plaintiffs allege that “CMU treated them differently than other similarly-situated student athletes with equivalent or less satisfactory athletic performance, who were treated more favorably because of their race or color.
“Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that neither AD Heeke, who began his employment as CMU’s Athletic Director on January 16, 2006, nor CMU, investigated the reasons for Coach Guevara’s firing by the University of Michigan in 2003, to see if Coach Guevara had forced players who were not her ‘type’ or maintained poor relationships with to leave the team at that school.”
In considering the claim, the court agreed with the defendants that a decision on the plaintiffs’ previous claims obviated the need to address her current arguments, or and was a “final decision on the merits for purposes of res judicata.”
Brooke Elizabeth Heike and Bethany L. Brown v. Central Michigan University Board Of Trustees And Central Michigan University; E.D. Mich.; Case Number 10-11373-BC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71456; 7/1/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Cindy R. Victor, Victor Firm, Sterling Heights, MI. (for defendants) Michael E. Cavanaugh, Fraser, Trebilcock, Lansing, MI.
