By Robert J. Romano, Assistant Professor, St. John’s University
On October 20, 2020, former Texas Tech University Head Women’s Basketball Coach Marlene Stollings filed a federal lawsuit against her former employer in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas – Lubbock Division, claiming she was wronged, discriminated against, and victimized by the University, the University’s Athletic Department and its Athletic Director, Kirby Hocutt.
Per her complaint, Coach Stollings alleges a variety of legal causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement, defamation, and sex discrimination in violation of the right to equal protection under the United States Constitution and in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., all stemming from the fact that she was terminated for cause by Mr. Hocutt on August 6, 2020.
In her nine-count complaint, Coach Stollings contends that her dismissal was “based on discriminatory biases against female coaches and that Texas Tech, and in particular Mr. Hocutt, regularly penalized female coaches for employing the same demanding and effective coaching techniques that male coaches utilize and utilized without consequence.” Coach Stollings also claims that the Texas Tech Athletic Department violated Title IX and engaged in discriminatory conduct by favoring the male sports programs over the female programs and as proof asserts that the University reported approximately $9 million of total expenses for the men’s basketball team, as compared to approximately $5 million for the women’s team.
Over two years ago, on April 9, 2018, Coach Stollings, after four seasons as the head women’s basketball coach for the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers, agreed to a six-year employment contract with Texas Tech University to head the Lady Raiders that included a $200,000 signing bonus and a guaranteed annual base salary of $300,000 per year, with the possibility of earning an additional $500,000 annually from “Outside Athletics Related Income (Rights Fees)” and “Supplements Compensation”. As is typical in most employment agreements, this one contained a termination for cause clause which read “Texas Tech could terminate the Agreement for cause if, “based on substantial evidence, Coach Stollings failed to perform her duties or acted in harmful or inappropriate ways, such as a “failure or refusal to perform assigned duties” or serious violation of local, state, or federal laws.” In addition, Coach Stollings could be terminated for cause for engaging in “Objectionable Behavior, which was defined in the Agreement as follows:
. . . behavior, actions or activities that (i) subject either the Coach or University to substantial ridicule or embarrassment; (ii) substantially adversely affects Coach’s or University’s reputation; (iii) substantially interferes with or substantially diminishes Coach’s standing as a University ambassador or representative; (iv) are substantially contrary to the best interest of the University, its students, or its athletic program.
But is Coach Stollings really the party that has been wronged in this situation? Was she the one who was victimized and discriminated against, or are the details and circumstances surrounding her dismissal just another illustration, in a long line of many, that showcases how coaches, doctors, and/or strength and condition trainers have for years engaged in the systematic and systemic physical, sexual, mental, and emotional abuse of female athletes at both the amateur and collegiate level?
It needs to be understood that Coach Stollings’ employment contract with Texas Tech was terminated for cause by the University’s Athletic Director on August 6, 2020, one day after USA Today published its article entitled Texas Tech women’s basketball players describe toxic culture: ‘Fear, anxiety and depression’. As per its article, a number of current and former Texas Tech players alleged that the women’s basketball program under Stollings amounted to a ‘culture of abuse’, describing it as a toxic atmosphere which resulted in twelve players leaving the program, seven of whom were recruited and brought to the University by Stollings herself.
One reported abuse revolved around the implementation of a heart rate monitoring system by Coach Stollings upon her arrival at Texas Tech. This monitoring system required a student-athlete to maintain an elevated heart rate of over 90% during workouts, practices, and games. When the monitoring system was first introduced, one player, Mia Castanda, who eventually transferred to Washburn University, was excited about it but such excitement quickly faded. “I’m kind of a workout guru, so that was cool for me.” Castanda stated to USA Today, “But then when I realized how they were using it, it was not very fun anymore.” Some of the other student-athletes described the system as a “torture mechanism”, which was compounded by the fear that they could be chastised, disciplined, have their practice or playing time reduced, or possibly lose their athletic scholarship if they did not reach the 90% benchmark on a consistent basis. The players concerns were justified since it has been confirmed that playing time in practice and games were based upon the heart rate monitoring data. Even more egregious, as USA Today reported, two Texas Tech women’s basketball players said they stopped taking over-the-counter pain medications because, “If we’re in pain, our heart rate’s going to be higher.” Better punish themselves than risk punishment from coaches, they figured.
Some of the other noteworthy claims reported to USA Today by current and former Texas Tech women’s basketball players include the following:
- Admonishment of a student-athlete for displaying symptoms of depression, an illness in which the student-athlete was eventually diagnosed.
- Allegations by five players that strength and conditioning coach Ralph Petrella sexually harassed them and other female players, making suggestive comments to one and using a therapy technique that involved applying pressure to some players’ chests and pubic bones and groins.
- Retaliation by Coach Stollings and other coaches against three players after they brought abuse claims to school officials.
So, the question is, based upon these aforementioned claims and allegations, was there a sufficient foundation to justify Texas Tech and its Athletic Director, Kirby Hocutt, to terminate Coach Stollings for cause? Or, in other words, did she engage in Objectionable Behavior, as defined within the employment agreement, that Texas Tech was in its right to dismiss her from her obligations as head women’s basketball coach without the need to either buy her out of the contract, or pay her the balance due under its terms? The answer may come from the student-athletes who played for her themselves.
When asked about playing under Coach Stollings, former Texas Tech Lady Raider Sydney Goodson response to USA Today via text message was as follows: “How we were treated was not okay, how administration handled it was not okay & I wanted to stand up & speak out about what we went through [because] it’s important. & if speaking out means one player doesn’t have to go through what we went through then it’s worth it.”
In addition, Shekinah Henry, a student-athlete who played for Coach Stollings while she was head coach at Virginia Commonwealth University, after reading the USA Today article stated “I was thinking (Stollings) got worse. The conditioning thing was a huge thing for her back at VCU, but we didn’t have heart monitors. I was overwhelmed. I was very upset because man, this woman has made a fortune off of abusing girls, and I was very angry, but I was proud of the players at the same time for having the strength that I didn’t have as a player back in those days to be able to speak up for themselves.
Ms. Henry went on to comment that –
“You incentivize winning in a way where kids are only viewed as products, as a means to an end and it’s like, ‘How can you expect a coach to treat people like human beings when it’s all about the Ws?’ Kids are going to be put in these bad situations, but until that incentive structure for status of a coach and their compensation, as soon as that’s fixed or if it’s never fixed, the problem’s going to keep going on forever and ever because even with schools, it’s all about wins. It’s not about the emotional health of these student athletes or even just their career opportunities after that. It’s a messed-up situation, but I’m hoping that with this story coming out with Coach Marlene, and hopefully other people will speak up, that some light will be shed to just the messed-up system that is collegiate athletics and the change will happen.”
Based upon these two players’ statements, together with the fact that various news sources published these and additional comments from other current and former players, it appears that Coach Stollings’ behavior and actions unquestionably subjected Texas Tech University to substantial ridicule and embarrassment, while also adversely affecting the University’s reputation. But most importantly, the fact that Coach Stollings’ coaching style created an ‘abusive’ and ‘toxic atmosphere’, the use of a heart monitoring system, and her history of negatively disciplining, chastising and belittling players are definitely contrary to the best interest of the student-athlete and the Texas Tech athletic program.
And if that isn’t enough to convince you that Texas Tech University, the Athletic Department, and its Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt were justified when they terminated Coach Stollings for cause, maybe a comment made by Nancy Hogshead-Maker, former Olympic gold-medalist and civil rights attorney, will: “Not every coach is abusive, but . . . we need to get abusive coaches out of coaching. Period. End of story.”
