A federal judge in the District of New Hampshire has denied a school district’s summary judgment motion in a case where a female lacrosse coach sued the district for discrimination.
Specifically, the judge held that it was unclear “whether the school district’s proffered reason for not renewing (the coach’s) contract and not rehiring her (was) a pretext for sex discrimination.” Thus, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the coach, it denied the motion.
Linda Haytayan was hired by the Nashua School District in March of 1997 to be the head coach of the girls’ lacrosse team. Five years later, Jim Davis was hired as athletic director and became Haytayan’s supervisor.
In July of 2002, Davis gave Haytayan a negative performance evaluation. Haytayan disputed the contents of the evaluation. Nevertheless, she was informed in September 2002 that her contract would not be renewed.
Undeterred, Haytayan applied for the position when the opening for the position was posted in November 2002. She allegedly was never considered. The school district hired a male administrator for the head coach position in February 2003.
Haytayan sued, claiming the district discriminated against her by treating her differently than male coaches and for failing to renew her contract or rehire her for the 2003 season.
The district moved for summary judgment on the basis that Haytayan cannot establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination and cannot prove that the proffered reason for not renewing her contract was a pretext for discrimination.
Haytayan presented two claims under Title VII: one of disparate treatment and one based on the school district’s failure to consider her application and rehire her as head lacrosse coach.
The coach based her disparate treatment claim on the following alleged facts:
“1. She was denied the right to discipline team members who attended a party involving underage drinking in the spring of 2002. In contrast, the boys’ lacrosse coach was permitted to administer appropriate punishment to his team members who were at the same party.
“2. Haytayan was banned from having closed practices with her team when other coaches were allowed to do so.
“3. Davis undermined her authority as a coach by directing her to not have any one-on-one communication with one of the players on her team, ordering her to have the same player start as goalie, and meeting with the team without notifying Haytayan or inviting [*4] her to attend.
“4. Davis required Haytayan to request reimbursement of sports-related expenses from him instead of applying directly to the booster club.
“5. Haytayan received a negative performance evaluation from Davis at the end of the 2002 season without receiving any prior negative feedback from him.”
The court pointed out the school district “only” addressed Haytayan’s performance evaluation, arguing that “there is no evidence that she would have been given any different treatment under the evaluation plan than any male coach.”
“Although the School District does not address the other alleged incidents, it nevertheless maintains that Haytayan has not established a prima facie case of disparate treatment. Specifically, the School District argues that ‘there is no basis to the plaintiff’s claim that she was treated differently from male coaches’ and that ‘she received extra attention from the athletic director . . . only because of difficulties relating to her team.’
The court went on to write that “although Haytayan has not presented any direct evidence of sex discrimination and only limited circumstantial evidence, she has sufficiently met her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework to survive summary judgment on this claim. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).”
Turning to the failure to rehire, the court first addressed the school district’s argument that the coach “failed to exhaust administrative remedies on her failure to rehire claim because it was not included in her Charge of Discrimination. The School District maintains that the failure to rehire claim is distinct from Haytayan’s non-renewal claim, which was included in the Charge, because the contract renewal process is different from the coach hiring process. However, the School District’s proffered reason for not renewing or rehiring Haytayan is that she failed to follow the proper procedures with regard to her performance evaluation.
“I conclude, as the Superior Court did (in the state court claim), that the non-renewal and failure to rehire claims are closely related and arise out of the same set of facts that was investigated by the Commission. Thus, Haytayan has fulfilled the requirement of exhausting her administrative remedies. See Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556, 565 (1st Cir. 2005); Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Corr., 245 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2001).”
“The real issue here is whether the School District’s proffered reason for not renewing Haytayan’s contract and not rehiring her is a pretext for sex discrimination,” wrote the judge. Unable to make that determination, the court found that “district is not entitled to summary judgment on this issue.”
Linda Haytayan v. Nashua School District; D.N.H.; Case No. 04-cv-459-PB; 1/3/06
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Ellen Purcell, H. Jonathan Meyer, Backus Meyer Solomon Rood & Branch, Manchester, NH. (for defendant) James M. McNamee, Jr., Nashua, NH.
