A federal judge from the District of New Jersey granted Kean University’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former coach, who filed a wrongful termination lawsuit after she objected to the way that the school handled NCAA violations and was subsequently fired. However, the court did grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
The plaintiff in the case was Michelle Sharp, the women’s basketball coach at Kean University, a Division III school. Sharp began coaching the team in 1998, and achieved some success in NCAA Tournament play.
In 2011, however, the NCAA notified Kean that the school was awarding more Dorsey Scholarships than what was allowed under NCAA rules. Sharp alleged that Kean did not inform incoming female student athletes of this fact or of the possibility that their scholarships or spots on the basketball team may be revoked if the NCAA initiated a formal investigation. The NCAA did launch an investigation into Kean in September 2011. Shortly after that, Kean removed student athlete Emily Cristaldi from the women’s basketball team roster.
Sharp clashed with other university personnel over how the university should handle the investigation, according to the complaint. Specifically, she informed the university and several individual defendants that she did not believe that Kean afforded Cristaldi due process rights before it removed her from the team. And while Sharp believed that Kean should oppose the NCAA’s allegations, the university allegedly disagreed. Sharp alleged that after expressing her views to university personnel, defendant Faruque Chowdhury — Kean’s Director of Human Resources — called her to his office and “instructed her that she was making too much noise and that she needed to tone it down.” According to the complaint, Kean then retaliated against Sharp by relieving her of her duties as Head Women’s Basketball Coach, re-assigning her to the East Campus Recreational Facilities, and later relocating her to an inferior office space. Alleging that this misconduct caused her injury, Sharp brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), and the common law. The defendants countered with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The first question the court focused on was whether Kean “is an arm of the state under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. If it is,” wrote the court, “Sharp cannot maintain her claims against it.” On this point, the court sided with the plaintiff, noting “the degree of autonomy enjoyed by Kean cuts against finding sovereign immunity.”
Turning to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court cited the defendants’ argument that Sharp’s § 1983 claims against the defendant be dismissed “because she has failed to allege a constitutional deprivation resulting from a Kean policy or custom. Even when a governmental entity is not protected by the Eleventh Amendment, it can be held liable in a § 1983 action only if the plaintiff shows that one of its policies or customs caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). A government policy or custom can be established in two ways: (1) a decision-maker with final authority to set a policy with respect to the action exercises such authority; or (2) certain practices are so well-settled as to ‘virtually constitute law’ even if there is no official policy. Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966, 971 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1480 (3d Cir. 1990)). Here, Sharp’s bald assertion that Kean ‘developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens’ is completely devoid of any factual support,” wrote the court in dismissing the §§ 1983 and 1985 claims.
As for the First Amendment claim brought under § 1983, “the plaintiff must sufficiently plead that (1) her conduct was protected by the First Amendment; (2) she was retaliated against; and (3) the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged retaliation. Bradshaw v. Twp. of Middleton, 145 Fed. Appx. 763 (3d Cir. 2005). Even assuming that Sharp’s speech is protected, the court concludes that because Sharp has failed to adequately plead that she suffered retaliation at the hands of (the defendants), her First Amendment claim against those defendants must be dismissed.”
The court also dismissed the remaining claims for lack of evidence as well, but was willing to give the plaintiff time to amend her complaint.
Revisiting the NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions’ Findings
The NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions found that Sharp “was at the center of the violations that occurred in Kean’s athletic programs,” according to an article that appeared in the Journal of NCAA Compliance. “The Committee on Infractions dubbed her the ‘catalyst for decisions’ regarding violations and noted that she “consistently failed to work within the athletics department structure.
“She had an ineligible player’s grade changed from an ‘F’ to an ‘incomplete’ in order to raise her GPA above the NCAA-required 2.0, making it to where she could play in the next game, one where she led the team in minutes played and scored 13 points. The course instructor was not contacted in regards to the grade change, nor was the university’s grade grievance process followed.
“… the final gaffe on Sharp’s end occurred when she gave one women’s basketball student a loan and two others a cash payment during a team trip to Florida. Sharp failed to report the violations when she committed them as well as upon arrival back to the university. This raised a red flag to the Committee on Infractions, who stated Sharp’s actions yielded ‘significant concern’ that she did not self-report.”
Michele Sharp v. Kean University et al.,; D.N.J.; Civ. No. 2:14-423 (WJM), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169298; 12/8/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Timothy J. McIlwain, Attorney at Law, LLC, HOBOKEN, NJ. (for defendants) Jennifer J. Mcgruther, Lead Attorney, State of New Jersey, Department of Law & Public Safety, Division of Law, Trenton, NJ.
