The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling of the Middle District of Louisiana, which granted LSU’s motion to dismiss in a case in which the school was sued by its former women’s tennis coach for racial discrimination.
The panel, like to district court, found that the university’s decision to terminate his contract had more to do with his lack of success as a coach than any perceived discrimination.
Plaintiff Anthony Minnis was hired by LSU in 1991. During his tenure as head coach, the LSU women’s tennis team achieved a winning record only four times, and in the SEC on only three occasions (1997, 2004, and 2008). His overall SEC won-loss record as head coach was 86-146. During his tenure, Minnis’ teams competed in the NCAA tournament 15 out of 21 years. But in Minnis’ last 12 years, the team never advanced past the second round. In the year preceding Minnis’ termination, his team did not reach the NCAA tournament, and in the three years preceding the non-renewal of Minnis’ contract, the women’s tennis team had three consecutive losing seasons.
Minnis sued the school for racial discrimination in 2012 after the school fired him. Among other things, he claimed that similarly situated white coaches were paid more and judged less harshly.
Named in the lawsuit are LSU Athletic Director Joseph Alleva; Senior Associate AD Eddie Nunez, and Senior Women’s Administrator Miriam Segar.
In its motion to dismiss, LSU suggested that student-athletes had “complained that Minnis created unnecessary tension during matches rather than offering tactical advice. And that he yelled and would not accept their input and often threatened to revoke scholarships. They were also concerned that Minnis was unorganized, conducted team meetings that lasted several hours and did not provide them constructive feedback.”
The court first examined Minnis claim of a violation of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination by employers “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The court turned to the burden-shifting framework established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) for guidance.
“To overcome a motion for summary judgment on his remaining discrimination claims, Minnis must first establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801-803. A prima facie case is established once the plaintiff has proven that he or she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for his position; (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) was replaced by someone outside the protected class; or in the case of disparate treatment, show that others similarly situated were treated more favorably. Id.”
Once a prima facie case is established, “the defendant must rebut by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802”
If the defendant satisfies that burden, the plaintiff “must then create a genuine issue of material fact that either: (1) the defendant’s reason is not true, but instead is a pretext for discrimination (pretext alternative); or (2) regardless of the nondiscriminatory reason, the plaintiff’s race was also a motivating factor (mixed-motives alternative). Alvarado v. Tex. Rangers, 492 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2007)”
The district court reasoned that Minnis’ Title VII falls short. While he satisfied the first three elements mentioned above, he failed in demonstrating that the other coaches were similarly situated to him. Specifically, he “failed to point to evidence detailing the job responsibilities, duties, and expectations or competitive success of the head coaches of other LSU sports. Rather, he merely points to the differences in salaries. … Thus, the court has not been provided with sufficient evidence to evaluate whether the head coaches of other sports are ‘similarly situated’ to Minnis.
“ … Moreover, though Minnis asserts that his termination is attributable to race discrimination, he has failed to point to any cases where a similarly-situated party, i.e., a coach with a losing record, succeeded in showing that his termination was based on his race.”
The court elaborated on Minnis’ mediocre record as a “legitimate” reason for LSU to terminate him. “In a profession created around competitive success, Minnis had a lackluster record,” wrote the court.
“Simply put, Minnis has failed to point to sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the alleged harassment complained of was severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of his employment,” it added.
Coach Appeals to the 5th Circuit
Minnis then appealed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on his Title VII disparate compensation and discriminatory discharge claims.
The panel found that the appeal fell short when LSU “articulated non-discriminatory reasons for the pay disparity (and Minnis failed) to rebut each of those reasons. He has not offered any evidence beyond his subjective beliefs to meet his burden. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext and, accordingly, Minnis’ disparate compensation claim fails.”
Similarly, Minnis’ discriminatory discharge claim failed “because he could not rebut LSU’s non-discriminatory reasons for termination.”
Turning to his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his hostile work environment claim, the appeals court found that “based on the totality of the circumstances, the combination of alleged acts does not constitute a hostile work environment because he has not shown that the acts were “sufficiently severe or pervasive” to alter the conditions of his employment and create “an abusive working environment.”
Anthony Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural And Mechanical College; 5th Cir.; No. 14-31251, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11390; 6/29/15
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Jill Leininger Craft, Esq., Jill Craft, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA. (for defendant) Vicki M. Crochet, Esq., Robert Wylie Barton, Deborah Elaine Lamb, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA; Edmond Wade Shows, Assistant Attorney General, Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA.
