An Iowa state appeals court has affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a school board lacked just cause for firing a high school basketball coach.
The board had fired the coach because of a history of intimidating behavior with his players and a specific incident that had occurred after he had been put on notice.
Plaintiff Dennis Cullinan was hired in 1996 as the Ames High School Basketball Coach. Shortly thereafter, complaints surfaced that necessitated a “Job Performance Memorandum” from the athletic director, which stated “there had been complaints Cullinan did not value all team members and had threatened or intimidated some athletes. … It also stated that Cullinan was expected to make ‘significant improvements’ in these areas during the next school year. Cullinan agreed to extend his probationary status for another year.”
The pressure on the plaintiff intensified during the 2001-2002 season, “when several new student and parent complaints were lodged regarding Cullinan’s coaching style.” A remediation plan was developed that placed certain requirements on the plaintiff, such as only making individual corrections of his players in the “presence of an assistant coach or . . . the student’s counselor or parent . . . .”
The court wrote that the plaintiff stayed out of trouble until December of 2003 when one of his players disobeyed an order during a game. After the contest, the plaintiff met with the player in a hallway without any one else present.
The player’s parents contacted the school’s superintendent to complain. School officials determined that he had admitted to a violation of the 2002 directive, and imposed a two-game suspension. “School officials also prepared and distributed a player survey, to be completed and returned anonymously, and interviewed players and parents,” wrote the court. “It was eventually recommended that Cullinan’s coaching contract be terminated.
“Cullinan timely filed for review by an adjudicator. The adjudicator concluded the Board’s decision should be reversed because it was not supported by the evidence and it was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The adjudicator held there was no just cause for Cullinan’s termination and ordered his coaching contract to be reinstated with back pay. The Board then filed a petition for judicial review. Following a hearing, the district court affirmed the adjudicator’s decision.”
The school board appealed.
The appeals court zeroed in on “the allegations of just cause contained within the notice to Cullinan: (1) failure to effectively lead the boys’ basketball program and (2) failure to adequately remediate leadership deficiencies. In assessing the evidence in support of these allegations, we agree with Cullinan that evidence of his past leadership deficiencies cannot alone serve as a basis for termination. However, such evidence is relevant to the question of whether past deficiencies have been remediated.”
The court continued that if the board could prove that the coach’s actions demonstrated a “failure to effectively lead the boys basketball program and failure to remediate past leadership deficiencies … (it) would provide just cause for termination of Cullinan’s coaching contract. However, upon review of the record we, like the adjudicator and the district court, conclude the underlying findings are not supported by a preponderance of the competent evidence.”
In short, the court agreed with the plaintiff that “the preponderance of evidence in the record does not support a determination that the December 16 meeting was an acute individual correction,” for the foregoing reasons.
“Cullinan stated he talked to Thompson, a team captain, about leadership, and shared some points he had learned at a recent conference. He told Thompson that players and coaches need to be ‘on the same page’ and, emphasizing his own experience as a player and coach, that Thompson needed to trust the coaching staff. According to Cullinan, Thompson questioned whether Cullinan believed he was a better player than Thompson, and that he had replied there was no comparison between athletes playing so many years apart. Cullinan stated that, other than explaining he could not consider Thompson’s request to play post until some injured players returned to the game, the rest of the meeting was essentially small talk. Cullinan admitted he had made a comment about having done everything he could to help Thompson in his recruitment efforts, but stated he had done so in the context of asking Thompson to ‘work together and bring the team forward . . . .’ He asserted there was no anger during the meeting, which ended with a handshake. Cullinan denied disciplining, demeaning, or criticizing Thompson.
“Thompson did not testify, and thus did not directly refute Cullinan’s account of the meeting. The Board nevertheless determined that Cullinan’s version of events was not entirely credible in light of the demeanor of the various witnesses, certain surrounding circumstances, and hearsay testimony.”
The court was also “troubled” by the board’s reliance on anonymous player surveys in rendering the plaintiff’s fate.
“First and foremost, we are troubled that the Board’s decision was based largely on ten wholly anonymous player surveys,” it wrote. “As Cullinan notes, there is no way to determine if any of the surveys, which were to be privately completed by all fifteen players and returned to a mailbox, were in fact completed by student athletes. In addition, we cannot agree that the surveys provide a comprehensive picture of Cullinan’s ability to lead the program.”
Board of Directors of the Ames Community School District v. Dennis Cullinan; Ct. App. Iowa; 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 273; 3/14/07
Attorneys of Record: (for defendants) Ronald L. Peeler of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines; (for plaintiff) Corey R. Lorenzen and David J. Dutton of Dutton, Braun, Staack & Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo
