A federal judge has dismissed a former University of New Mexico football assistant coach’s claim against UNM, former head coach Mike Locksley and Vice President of Athletics Paul Krebs, finding that he had not adequately supported his position that he was subjected to a hostile work environment while on Locksley’s staff.
The court did hold, however, that plaintiff J.B. Gerald could amend and re-file his complaint.
The impetus for the claim was a September 2009 physical altercation between Gerald and Locksley, which occurred in a football meeting room. Locksley was suspended by the school for 10 days, causing him to miss a game. Gerald, meanwhile, refused the school’s punishment and left the UNM.
Less than a year later, Gerald filed a complaint alleging that his civil rights had been violated. He alleged personal injury, race discrimination and deprivation of First Amendment rights, naming Locksley, Krebs and UNM as defendants.
The defendants moved to dismiss, which the court granted on May 6. Gerald v. Locksley et al.; D. N.M.; No. CIV 10-0721 JB/LFG (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53469). However, the court left the door open for an amended complaint.
“The court grants Gerald leave to amend his complaint to attempt to plead a hostile work environment claim, because Gerald’s allegations in his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge may adequately state a hostile work environment claim,” the court wrote. “If, subject to rule 11, Gerald amends his complaint to advance the facts alleged in his EEOC charge in support of his hostile work environment claim, then he may be able to survive a motion to dismiss. Because Gerald’s other claims fail as a matter of law, the court dismisses the claims in his complaint with prejudice.” Id.
Over the summer, Gerald submitted an affidavit providing more details of the treatment he alleged contributed to a hostile work environment. The defendants countered that the affidavit was filed improperly. The court agreed, opting not to consider it, while rendering its decision.
The court held that while the allegations in the affidavit did not make a strong case, “the difficulties Gerald faces at future stages in the litigation are not a basis to grant a motion to dismiss, and do not render amendment futile.”
Gerald had also alleged that Krebs and Locksley retaliated against him, a claim the court dismissed without prejudice. Its rationale for leaving the door open on that claim centered on the fact the plaintiff had failed to check a box marked “retaliation”, when he submitted his complaint to the EEOC.
On September 25, Krebs announced that Locksley has been relieved of his duties and would no longer serve as head coach. The announcement marked the end of three tumultuous years with Locksley guiding the program. Locksley, for example, had also been accused of improprieties in May of 2009, when a secretary in the UNM football department filed a complaint with the EEOC accused Locksley of sexual harassment and age discrimination. Lopez claimed she was fired by Locksley because she was not a “young gal,” who could entice recruits. Locksley countered with a suit against Lopez for defamation. The litigation went away when UNM agreed to give the secretary a newly created job, a pay increase, season tickets to all Lobo athletic events, and thousands of dollars in back pay.
