The chief judge of the Northern District of Indiana has denied a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by the mother of a high school basketball player, who sued after her daughter was benched near the end of the 2022-2023 girls’ varsity basketball season.
B.T. was a sophomore at Churubusco High School (CHS) and a guard on the CHS girls’ basketball team during the 2022-2023 school year. The problems giving rise to this eventual lawsuit started in January 2023. At a practice on January 5, B.T. touched the team’s head coach, David Goodwell (Goodwell), on the hip or the side of his buttocks with her hand. Goodwell found the contact “inappropriate, unwelcomed, and offensive,” so he reported it to the school’s athletic director, Nathan Wright (Wright). Wright, Goodwell, and B.T. met the next day to discuss the incident. Wright explained to B.T. that her conduct was inappropriate, and B.T. apologized.
B.T. did not start that night’s game as punishment but played in all four quarters. Following the game, B.T.’s mother, D.T., texted the parents of other players stating, “we are 3-11. Another senseless loss. I am so done with this manic, irrational coaching. What a colossal mistake to move her here.”
The next day, January 7, D.T. sent a long email to Wright and Terrence Roe (Roe), principal of CHS. D.T. suggested in her email that there had been “multiple instances of sexually inappropriate and/orsexual harassment like-behavior with women student-athletes by Goodwell and by a female assistant.”
In the letter, D.T. specifically complained:
– Goodwell and a player travelled together to watch basketball games. This bothered D.T. because, “[t]his particular girl comes from a really messed up home life,” and says, “stupid stuff to other kids regularly.” D.T. believed this was a “scandal in the making for the school.”
– Goodwell tried to “pit the players against each other” by making upperclassmen responsible for disciplining underclassmen.
– An assistant coach, “Coach Brooke,” undermined Goodwell to the players.
– Goodwell favored some players over others.
In its opinion, the court wrote that “the real reason for the email seems to be to complain about the January 5 practice incident. D.T. spends paragraphs disputing Goodwell’s version of the incident, closing by saying, ‘I am livid about this. I am not going to let this go. I will absolutely clear [B.T.’s] name from this allegation.’ D.T. made several demands at the close of the email, including a ‘review of the truthfulness’ of Goodwell’s accusation againstB.T., a public apology from Goodwell to B.T., for B.T. to finish the season, a review of ‘Goodwell’s conduct with any other player outside of school events,’ and a parent meeting.”
Wright, Roe, and B.T. met on January 7 to discuss the allegations. During the meeting, B.T. showed Wright and Roe a video which she has alternatively described as “a player simulating a sex act” with Goodwell and “the rubbing of a player’s genitals” on Goodwell’s back. The court wrote that B.T.’s “characterization is an embellishment at best and a lie at worst. What the video showed was Goodwell doing a pushup while a player sat on his back. Wright would later be given a photo of B.T. doing exactly the same thing.”
The last game B.T. played was a January 12 victory over Hamilton High School. After that game, Goodwell decided to bench B.T. for the rest of the season. He claims that the decision was made because “B.T. engaged in conduct that was detrimental to the team, which included spreading rumors about [Goodwell’s] future as a coach.” Goodwell also points to an incident during a January24 loss to South Adams High School where B.T. took off her shoes on the bench and cheered for the other team as a basis for her ongoing benching.
B.T. has a different explanation for her benching. She claims that, on January 20, she asked Goodwell why she was not playing. He responded that he would not play B.T. because “she got him in trouble.”
In any event, B.T. did not play again during the 2022-2023 season, including CHS’ sectional loss to Westview High School. In fact, B.T. was not even on the roster for the sectional game. This incensed D.T. After learning of B.T.’s omission, D.T. wrote derogatory emails and texts.
CHS finished the season with a 5-18 record.
B.T. and her mother initiated this lawsuit, claiming the school district retaliated against her in violation of Title IX and moved for a preliminary injunction, which is at issue here.
To initially succeed, B.T. had to show that (1) she will suffer irreparable harm before the final resolution of her claims; (2) available remedies at law are inadequate; and (3) she has a likelihood of success on the merits.
The court noted that the defendants “seemingly concede the first two threshold requirements for a preliminary injunction, focusing their argument on B.T.’s likelihood of success on the merits. To show a likelihood of success on the merits, B.T. must make a ‘strong showing that she is likely to succeed on the merits’ of her claim; a mere ‘possibility of success is not enough’ to warrant emergency relief.”
To establish a retaliation claim, B.T. must demonstrate that (1) she engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) the school took a materially adverse action against her; and (3) there existed a but-for causal connection between the two. See Burton v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 851 F.3d 690, 695 (7th Cir. 2017).
The court concluded that B.T. was not engaging in protected activity.
“Why does the Court reach this conclusion? Several reasons. First are the almost nonsensical ways that B.T. characterizes facts in her briefing. B.T. describes D.T.’s email to Wright and Roe as alleging ‘multiple instances of sexually inappropriate and or/sexual [sic] harassment like-behavior [sic] with women student athletes by Goodwell and by a female assistantcoach on the Churubusco High school [sic] staff.’ As discussed above, such a description is fabricated. Reasonable minds could differ as to whether D.T. was alluding to an inappropriate relationship between Goodwell and a player in the email, but there were not ‘multiple instances of sexually inappropriate’ behavior outlined in the email.
“More outrageous, and offensive, is B.T.’s description of the video she showed Wright and Roe during the January 11 meeting. Again, the video portrayed Goodwell doing a pushup while one of his players sat on his back. But B.T. takes this innocuous video and describes it, in affidavits, as ‘a player simulating a sex act’ with Goodwell and ‘the rubbing of a player’s genitals’ on Goodwell’s back. If B.T. is willing to mischaracterize facts under oath, if not outright make them up, and present them to a federal court in pursuit of a preliminary injunction, the Court has little trouble concluding that she acted in less-than-good-faith when making similar, spurious claims to CHS administrators.
“The Court also finds the timing of B.T. and D.T.’s complaints to be probative. Nothing in the record shows,before January 5, any concern by B.T. or D.T. regarding Goodwell’s coaching or conduct. But just hours after B.T. did not start the January 6 game, D.T. sent a text to team parents calling Goodwell’s coaching ‘manic’ and ‘irrational.’ The next day D.T. sent off a fiery diatribe with what can be best described as penny-ante complaints by a mom who is unhappy with her child’s playing time. Four days later B.T. showed Wright and Roe a video of conduct she also engaged in, but which she now describes in pornographic terms. If the goal of B.T. and D.T. was to report statutorily prohibited sexual harassment and not to lash out against the consequences for B.T.’s conduct, then it is reasonable to ask why the alleged harassment only surfaced after January 6.
“Simply put, and based only on the record before it, the Court sees no facts or legal theories that would demonstrate that B.T. engaged in statutorily protected activity. She neither complained of actionable sexual harassment under Title IX, nor had a good-faith belief that she was doing so. She cannot, then, show a likelihood of success on the merits of her Title IX retaliation case.”
B.T. v. Smith-Green Cmty. Sch. Corp.; N.D. Ind.; 10/26/23; Cause No. 1:23-CV-325-HAB
