A federal judge from the Eastern District of Wisconsin has dismissed the claim of a jilted athlete against a coach and her high school athletic director, finding that her claim that they violated her right to substantive due process failed on numerous fronts.
The minor plaintiff, N.T., was a 5th grader in the School District of Westfield when the alleged behavior started. N.T. was friends with the daughter of coach Marcia Van Natta. But soon, the two young girls drifted apart. “They did not have a verbal or physical fight, but stopped spending time together by the end of the school year,” wrote the court. “Plaintiff believes that defendant Van Natta was so upset by their falling out that she began a campaign to harass (her).”
That alleged harassment started when Van Natta was coaching a club basketball team on which plaintiff played during her fifth and sixth grade years. The team was sponsored by the Pioneer Youth Basketball Club, a community organization not affiliated with the district. Van Natta volunteered to coach the team because her daughter was also on the team. But, the plaintiff contends, when the friendship ended that Van Natta “yelled at her more during practice and gave her less playing time. The plaintiff, however, admits that she still received the same amount of playing time as several other girls on the team.”
The abuse allegedly continued when Van Natta coached the plaintiff’s school-sponsored seventh grade basketball team and “excessively” yelled at her.
Two years later, while in high school, the plaintiff had a problem with another coach. Mary Mades. Mades was the athletic director and dean of students for the District’s high school as well as the coach of the varsity softball team. As a freshman, N.T. tried out for the varsity softball team, but failed to make it and was relegated to the junior varsity. The plaintiff suggests that “Mades sent her back to the JV team because Mades was Van Natta’s friend and Van Natta did not want the plaintiff on the varsity because A.V.N. had also tried out for softball and not made the varsity. The plaintiff, however, offers no evidence of this.
“The plaintiff also claims that Van Natta convinced plaintiff’s sophomore year basketball coach, Mike Grosskreutz, to yell at her during practices and bench her during games but again offers no evidence to support her assertion,” added the court. Grosskreutz claimed he limited the plaintiff’s playing time “because she missed numerous practices.”
There were other incidents of a similar nature. In response, the plaintiff’s parents asked to appear before the school board “to discuss their concerns about plaintiff’s treatment. In January and February 2011,” which was granted. District officials interviewed the plaintiff, her parents, Mades, and every member of the varsity softball team, but concluded that the complaint was baseless. In the summer of 2011, the plaintiff’s was granted a request to transfer outside the school district for her senior year.
“To establish a right to relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that: 1) she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law,” wrote the court, citing Buchanan-Moore v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009).
The plaintiff claimed “that Van Natta and Mades violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection because they intentionally treated her differently from other similarly situated students without a rational basis.”
The court continued: “The plaintiff’s claim against Van Natta comes down to her assertion that Van Natta yelled at her more than the other players on the plaintiff’s seventh grade basketball team. This claim, however, fails. First, the plaintiff does not show that she was similarly situated to her teammates in terms of skill level and effort. Second, even assuming that plaintiff had made such a showing, she fails to show that Van Natta lacked a rational basis for yelling at her or that Van Natta yelled at her for an impermissible reason. As coach, Van Natta had discretion to decide how much guidance to give each player. Conceivably, Van Natta believed that the plaintiff would benefit from additional guidance. Different players, even those with similar skills, often need different levels of coaching. See Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 603-04, 128 S. Ct. 2146, 170 L. Ed. 2d 975 (2008) (noting that it is difficult to prove a class-of-one claim where the state action at issue involved “discretionary decision-making based on a vast array of subjective, individualized assessments”). The plaintiff also presents no evidence that Van Natta was upset because plaintiff and A.V.N. were no longer friends, much less that she punished plaintiff on account of it. Thus, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Van Natta violated plaintiff’s right to equal protection.
“The plaintiff’s class-of-one claim against Mades fails for similar reasons. No reasonable factfinder could find that Mades’ decision to place plaintiff on the JV softball team during her freshman year constituted an equal protection violation. This is so because the plaintiff presents no evidence indicating that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated students. The plaintiff was one of eight freshmen placed on the JV team that year, and she actually received more favorable treatment than most freshmen, including A.V.N., because she was given an opportunity to play on the varsity team for the first two weeks of the season.
“Finally, the plaintiff presents no evidence that Mades violated her right to equal protection by benching her during the varsity softball tournament. Like Van Natta, Mades had to use her discretion to determine how best to coach her team. In doing so, her goal was not to give every player the same amount of playing time but to win games. Mades says that after evaluating her players, she concluded that the plaintiff was not as good a fielder as the other players. As a result, she played plaintiff as the designated hitter during the first game of the tournament and benched her for the second and third games. This is the kind of discretionary decision that a coach is entitled to make. While the plaintiff disagrees with the coach’s assessment of her skills, she offers no evidence indicating that Mades’ decision was based on anything improper. Thus, the decision cannot be said to be irrational. Mades also had a rational basis for demoting plaintiff to the JV team after the tournament, the fact that the plaintiff left the tournament before it was over.”
N.T. v. School District of Westfield, Marcia Van Natta, and Mary Mades; E.D. Wisc.; Case No. 11-CV-00556; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39467; 3/21/13
Attorneys or Record: (for plaintiff: Jeff Scott Olson, Jeff Scott Olson Law Firm SC, Madison, WI. (for defendant) Marcia Van Natta, Mary Mades, Defendants: David E Rohrer, Boardman & Clark LLP, Madison, WI.
