By Gary Chester, Senior Writer
When Brian Barrio, a successful athletic director at Central Connecticut State, was recruited for the same position at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) in 2019, he was allegedly assured that there were no significant Title IX issues lurking in the shadows. Five years after he accepted the AD position, Barrio was terminated for supposedly mishandling Title IX complaints that he had been told did not exist.
Barrio responded with a complaint against UMBC, the UMBC Board of Trustees, and UMBC’s president, Sheares Ashby, alleging fraudulent inducement, retaliation in violation of Title IX, promissory estoppel, and libel. Judge Brendan Hurson considered the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint in Barrio v. University of Maryland, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80635 (D. Md. April 29, 2025).
Were UMBC’s Title IX Woes in the Rear View Mirror?
Barrio claims that he conducted due diligence into whether there were active Title IX claims against UMBC before he accepted the AD position. During the hiring process, at least two UMBC administrators told Barrio that a sexual misconduct claim against a baseball player and a gender equity complaint related to the softball team had been resolved, and that UMBC had learned valuable lessons about Title IX compliance.
Barrio asked the UMBC search committee if there were other potential Title IX claims. His questions concerned the athletic department’s senior staff, including Chad Craddock, the head swim coach and associate AD overseeing Aquatics. A member of the committee said that Cradock was “a wonderful and highly regarded leader” and “a perfect fit for UMBC.” A second administrator told Barrio privately that Craddock was “incredibly well-respected … and was beloved on campus.” According to the complaint, Ashby and a UMBC administrator told Barrio that all issues concerning Title IX reporting issues had been resolved.
Barrio started his new job in January 2020, but the campus was shut down weeks later due to COVID. Soon thereafter, student-athletes on the swimming team reported that Cradock had violated COVID protocols. The plaintiff investigated the claims and reported them to UMBC’s general counsel and its Title IX office. Barrio suspended Cradock. After the suspension, members of the swim team allegedly told Barrio that “they ‘felt safe’ to report’ Cradock’s sexual abuse and assaults.” Barrio claims that UMBC had previously protected Cradock and covered up reports of his misconduct because the team was successful and because Cradock was a good fundraiser. He claimed that his swift action led to Cradock’s removal and brought an end to the abuse against UMBC student-athletes.
The Feds Investigate UMBC
The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a Title IX investigation and issued a report in early 2024. After reading the report, Barrio claimed he became distressed from learning “how much the University had known about Cradock’s abusive and illegal actions, and its cover up efforts, long before he was interviewed.” The report stated that administrators and the Title IX office knew as early as 2016 that Cradock was not reporting incidents of sexual harassment involving student-athletes and that the Title IX office failed to address his misconduct.
According to the complaint, on February 9, 2024, Barrio told Ashby that a better funded institution was pursuing him for its AD position. Ashby allegedly told Barrio that she would sign an extension of his contract through 2028. On March 14, 2024, Ashby told Barrio that she was going to terminate his contract. She issued a public statement stating that the “failures between 2015 and 2020 identified by the DOJ were the collective responsibility of many individuals … [who failed] to comply with their Title IX obligations …”
On March 19, 2024, Barrio discussed the statement with Ashby, who allegedly acknowledged the statement did not apply to him. Ashby, however, refused to issue a statement exonerating the plaintiff. UMBC fired Barrio that day. [Less than one month later, UMBC agreed to pay $4.14 million to the Maryland Department of Justice on behalf of the student-athletes who had been sexually harassed by Cradock.] About a year after UMBC terminated Barrio, the trial court considered the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Is UMBC’s Alleged Fraud Barred by the Statute of Limitations?
Barrio alleges that UMBC leadership lied to him to induce him to accept the AD position, and that university officials knew of the pending Title IX issues and their own cover-up when they told him otherwise during the interview process in 2020. UMBC claimed that the three-year statute of limitations barred Barrio’s claim which was filed in 2025. Judge Hurson found that the discovery rule extending accrual of the action may apply because Barrios alleges that he did not know of the Title IX cover-up until the DOJ issued its report in March of 2024. Based on the allegations in the complaint, there are no facts to show that the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the statements made by UMBC officials during the hiring process were false.
The court also denied the motions of UMBC and the UMBC Board of Regents to dismiss Barrio’s retaliation claim, citing Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Education, 544 U.S. 167, 173-84 (2005), which held that a private right of action exists under Title IX “when a funding recipient retaliates against a person because he complains of sex discrimination.” At issue is whether UMBC terminated Barrio because he complained or because he mishandled sex discrimination claims.
Barrio alleges that he was promptly fired as a proximate result of the DOJ releasing its report that was critical of UMBC and its leadership. UMBC argued that there was no proximate cause because it learned of Barrio’s protected activity in 2020 and did not fire him until 2024. The court found that the reason for firing Barrio was an issue of fact that precluded dismissal of the claims against UMBC and its Board. However, the court dismissed the claim against Ashby because Title IX does not authorize claims against school officials.
Barrio’s promissory estoppel claim is based on Ashby’s representation that she would extend his contract through 2028. UMBC argued that sovereign immunity bars quasi-contractual claims against Maryland state entities. The court dismissed the claim on the merits and because Barrios did not substantively oppose UMBC’s argument.
The Alleged Defamation Did Not Mention Barrio by Name, But …
The court denied the motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims of libel and libel by implication. Barrio alleges that his termination one day after UMBC released its public statement implied that he had mishandled the claims against Cradock. UMBC stated that those who failed to live up to their Title IX obligations “will be held accountable.” Barrio alleges that because UMBC made him a scapegoat, he has been unable to obtain employment and is effectively “unhirable.” UMBC argued that neither its statement nor the DOJ report identified Barrio by name, so “there is no plausible way that [Plaintiff] can assert that the allegedly defamatory statement refers to some ‘ascertainable person’ and that person is him.”
Under Maryland law, inference, implication, or insinuation is actionable if the meaning of a statement is plain. Judge Hurson noted that “the courts must consider the [statement] as a whole to arrive at the true meaning of the specific words and phrases … and they cannot] separate words or phrases from the context.” While noting it was a close call, the court denied the motion because the plaintiff at this stage is entitled to all reasonable inferences, and the statements plausibly refer to Barrio.
The court also considered UMBC’s argument that state personnel such as Ashby enjoy state tort immunity if their conduct is within the scope of the public duties of state employees and “made without malice or gross negligence.” Barrio argued that Ashby agreed that the press release was false insofar as it implied that Barrio had mishandled the allegations against Cradock. The court found that the complaint alleged facts that, if proven, could establish that Ashby acted with malice or gross negligence in issuing the statements.
Lessons for Employers and Prospective Employees
Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the case illustrates the importance of employers providing accurate information during the employee interview process. Even if UMBC successfully defends the case, or pays a nominal settlement, the University has incurred legal expenses and has drawn public attention to an embarrassing chapter in its history.
On the flip side, a prospective employee who suspects that there may be more than meets the eye on a key employment issue might want to take a pass and look elsewhere. Or, if possible, the prospective employee might insist that the written contract includes an employer’s material representations. A prospective employer’s refusal to do so would give the potential employee pause when considering the job offer.
The court’s decision reflects that Barrio has viable claims based on several legal theories. But the plaintiff in any civil case has the burden of producing credible evidence that persuades a jury that events unfolded as the complaint suggests. Had UMBC made written representations concerning no substantive Title IX claims that the DOJ later contradicted, Barrio would have concrete evidence to prove his claims, as well as a viable claim for breach of contract.
