By Michael S. Carroll, PhD
On January 31, 2024, US District Judge Michael Mills for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the lawsuit filed by former football player DeSanto Rollins against the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) and head football coach Lane Kiffin. The suit, originally filed in September of 2023, made several allegations against both the University and Kiffin, including racial, sexual, and disability discrimination.
Background
As a brief primer, the plaintiff, DeSanto Rollins, was on the Ole Miss football team but had experienced a number of injuries and was struggling both physically and mentally as a result. He alleges that he was pressured to enter the transfer portal and believes coaches wanted him off of the team. Following a meeting with Kiffin, Rollins informed the coaching staff that he needed a mental health break, something supported by the University’s sports psychologist. During this break, various members of the coaching staff asked Rollins to meet with Coach Kiffin, but Rollins declined, stating that he was not up to it. He finally did meet with Kiffin in his office in March of 2023. During this meeting, Rollins alleges that Kiffin berated him for not responding to his efforts to meet, screamed obscenities at him, and told him he was off of the team. In subsequent communication to Rollins, coaches informed him that he was still on scholarship and not off of the team. Rollins, through his attorney, sued the University and Kiffin in September of 2023, citing numerous allegations of discrimination.
Response
In response to the suit, the University filed a Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The case was paused in November of 2023 by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy so that the motion to dismiss could be ruled upon, which brings us to the current decision.
Motion to Dismiss and Court Decision
In their response to the suit and motion to dismiss, the defendants’ chief claim was that Rollins was not in fact kicked off of the team and that he retained his scholarship. In support, the University provided a link to the official team roster which lists Rollins. Plaintiff’s response to this was that he was there in name only, stating that he had not been invited to participate in any team activities since the infamous March meeting with Kiffin.
Defendants also challenged the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under an 11th Amendment sovereign immunity claim. With sovereign Immunity, federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits against a state agency or official in his or her official capacity. As such, defendants argue that the 11th Amendment bars Rollins’ ADA and negligence claims against both the University and Ole Miss. The 5th Circuit has consistently held that state universities qualify as arms of the state and thus both the University and Kiffin have sovereign immunity. The Court concluded that Rollins failed to allege a sufficient Title II claim under the ADA and that defendants were entitled to immunity. As such, the ADA claims were dismissed. With respect to Rollins’ negligence and gross negligence claims, the defendants argue that they are immune from those claims under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), which preserves sovereign immunity. The Court agreed and subsequently dismissed these claims as well. Likewise, Rollins’ Equal Protection claims were also dismissed.
Rollins brought Title VI and Title IX claims against defendants for racial and gender discrimination, claiming that he was treated differently than other white and female athletes who also experienced mental health issues. The Court dismissed these claims as well, for the same reasons as the Equal Protection claim was dismissed. Additionally, this type of claims requires the showing of a discriminatory intent on the part of defendants, which Rollins failed to do. Rollins also claims he was entitled to damages for physical pain, emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation, which the Court also dismissed, citing unrecoverable damages.
Rollins had alleged that defendants discriminated against him due to his disability in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Similar to his claim under the ADA, Rollins needed to prove that he was otherwise qualified for the activity (i.e., participation in football) related to the alleged discrimination. The Court noted that the only thing keeping Rollins from rejoining the team was obtaining a release from his mental health provider, which he failed to do. Because he did not comply with the necessary requirement for returning to the team, his claim here was also dismissed by the Court.
In his last claim, Rollins brought an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim against Kiffin in his individual capacity. Under Mississippi law, this claim requires five elements:
- The defendant acted willfully or wantonly towards the plaintiff by committing certain described actions;
- The defendant’s acts are one which evoke outrage or revulsion in civilized society;
- The acts were directed at, or intended to cause harm to, the plaintiff;
- The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a direct result of the acts of the defendant; and
- Such resulting emotional distress was foreseeable from the intentional acts of the defendant.
In the motion to dismiss, defendants argue that none of the statements in the complaint rise to the level of actionable IIED under Mississippi law. Plaintiffs offered no real response to this claim, and while the Court noted that Kiffin’s conduct in the meetings was certainly offensive and imprudent, it was not so egregious as to trigger action under the law. As such, the Court dismissed the final claim.
Rollins’ attorney has vowed to continue the fight and stated they would appeal the decision.
References
DeSanto Rollins v. Lane Kiffin, et al., Case 3:23-cv-00356-MPM-RP, (N.D. Miss. 2024). Retrieved from: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24399418-rollins-v-kiffinole-miss-order
Michael S. Carroll is a Full Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He also serves as Online Program Coordinator for Troy University and works closely with students in the TROY doctoral program.
