By Leticia Valencia
Excellent coaches can typically be found at the collegiate level because they exude enthusiasm, support, respect, and patience toward their players. If a college coach is terminated from their position, the main reason should be because the qualities that embody an excellent coach are no longer present.
Two volleyball coaches at the University of Delaware (“UD”) had hoped to prove that they were fired in violation of federal discrimination laws, not because those aforementioned qualities went missing.
A federal judge found otherwise, granting summary judgment to UD.
Bonnie J. Kenny was the head coach of the UD’s women’s volleyball team. Her wife, Cindy Gregory, was the team’s associate head coach. Both women were in their fifties when UD fired them in the middle of their volleyball season (Gregory v. Univ. of Del., U. S. D. C. D. Del. No. 1:17-cv-01156-RGA, D.I. 11-8-19, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194334 at 1). The coaches subsequently sued the University of Delaware, Chrissi Rawak, and Thomas LaPenta on August 17, 2017 (Id. at 1). The plaintiffs alleged that they were fired by UD due to their sexual orientation and for age discrimination as UD replaced both coaches with women in their thirties (Id. at 3). The plaintiffs sued the defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Plaintiff Kenny had initially independently sued UD alleging that her termination was based on age discrimination, sexual orientation, and her marital status Kenny v. Univ. of Del., No. 1:17-cv-01157-RGA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28470 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2018). The two cases were consolidated. The court decided to grant the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 and 2 of the complaint which were based on violation of the due process clause. However, the court denied defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 3 and 4, both on age discrimination under Violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (“DDEA”) and Violation of the Equal Protection Clause (Id. at 2).
Background
Head coach Kenny and her wife were hired by UD in 2002 (Id.). The couple had begun dating years prior to their appointment to the women’s volleyball team at UD. They married under
Delaware’s same sex-marriage law in 2013 (Id.). Although they did not make their union public, the couple did not hide their relationship and assumed people knew they were married. The women’s volleyball team enjoyed years of success under Kenny and Gregory. However, their performance began deteriorating in 2013 (Id. at 3).
Eric Ziady was the athletic director at UD in 2014 (Id.). Following an anonymous complaint from a student, Ziady barred Gregory from one-on-one meetings with students. The complaint alleged that Gregory inappropriately hugged and kissed her players, which made her unapproachable. UD hired Chrissi Rawak as athletic director in 2016. Rawak was subsequently made aware of the complaint against Kenny (Id.).
Rawak attended three volleyball games in September 2016 and watched a few other games online (Id. at 4). Rawak noticed that Kenny “yelled” at players in an aggressive tone. She additionally noticed that the players looked “distraught defeated, uncomfortable, and devalued” (Id.). Moreover, Rawak received a complaint alleging that Kenny bullied players. Parents also complained that Kenny shoved their daughter and belittled her during their one-on-one meetings (Id.). The coaches defended this claim by stating that the players were simply upset because they did not get enough playing time during their games (Id.).
Rawak then met separately with both coaches and informed them of the allegations against them. She gave the coaches the option of resigning or be subjected to a UD investigation. They chose the latter. In her investigation through a survey, Rawak discovered that 10 out of 13 players “sometimes” or “often” experienced mental abuse by the coaches (Id. at 4). Both coaches were both subsequently fired “without cause” (Id.).
Legal Analysis
The legal analysis section of the opinion is a fairly short four pages. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the allegations of unlawful termination based on age discrimination and sexual orientation (Id. at 6). Summary judgment is granted when the moving party, the defendants here, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Id.). The moving party has the initial burden of proving that there is no material fact that should be disputed. Material facts are those that can affect the outcome of the case if found to be true by the factfinder (Id.). When there is no such material fact, the court can find judgment for the moving party. The burden then shifts to the non-moving party, the plaintiffs here, to show that there is a genuine issue that should be tried (Id. at 7). The court determines the absence or existence of a material fact by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Id.).
The court used the McDonnell Douglas framework to assess the employment discrimination claim, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), This test is used to analyze age discrimination claims under the ADEA and age discrimination claims under the state DDEA (Id.). To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she is a member of a protected class, that she was qualified for the position, that she suffered an adverse employment action, and that an inference can be raised of intentional discrimination (Id. at 8).
Kenny and Gregory were able to establish a prima facie case on their age discrimination claim because they were at least 40 years old and members of the protected class (Id. at 9). Moreover, they were both replaced with coaches substantially younger than them. This was enough to raise the inference of age discrimination. Defendants, however, argued that Rawak was not aware of the age of the new coaches upon hiring them. She asserted that the reason Kenny and Gregory were terminated was based on their unprofessional and hostile behavior towards their players, the parent’s complaint, and the survey that reported mental abuse. (Id.) However, the plaintiffs argued that defendants gave multiple and inconsistent reasons for firing them, but the court conceded that defendants were able to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie case of age discrimination (Id. at 3). That Rawak had multiple reasons for firing them was typical for employers (Id.) Nothing in plaintiffs’ arguments showed pretext for termination, the court found. All evidence that defendants presented pointed to legitimate reasons for firing the employees. Plaintiffs could not avoid summary judgment by insisting that the evidence presented by defendants was false (Id. at 5).
Plaintiffs also argued that they were discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, which deprived them of their Fourteen Amendment rights to equal protection (Id. at 7). The court also applied the McDonnell Douglas analysis and determined that although plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of discrimination based on sexual orientation, it was unnecessary for the court to delve into the analysis as the plaintiffs did not show that defendant’s rationale was pretextual (Id. at 7). Moreover, the reasons defendants gave for Kenny and Gregory’s termination were coherent and not contradictory, implausible, inconsistent or incoherent (Id.) and that UD “proffered legitimate reasons for its action” (Id.). A rational factfinder would have no reason to conclude Defendants’ justifications are pretext for sexual orientation discrimination” (Id. at 8).
Conclusion
UD’s athletic director ultimately did what she believed was right for her student-athletes by terminating Kenny and Gregory. Mental abuse should not be tolerated in a collegiate environment and much less by a mentor. UD’s priority should be their students and to promote a safe athletic environment, which the court noted by agreeing with the defendants in this case.
