A federal judge from the District of Delaware has granted in part a Delaware State University’s motion to dismiss the gender discrimination claim of a senior women’s administrator in the athletic department.
But the school is far from out of the woods as the court let stand that part of the plaintiff’s claim, which alleged some surprisingly egregious behavior on the part of several other athletic department officials, which was made within the statute of limitations.
Constancia Simpson Hayes, an African-American woman, began employment with DSU as its head women’s track coach and senior woman administrator in July of 2001. After an initial one-year contract, Hayes signed a three-year contract that was set to expire on June 30, 2005. “During that time period,” wrote the court, she “was well-regarded in both positions, receiving endorsements from her superiors, including DSU president, Dr. Allen Sessoms, for participation in a leadership training program for which she was subsequently selected. Additionally, the plaintiff was actively involved as an administrator, serving on and chairing various committees, and supervising one staff member and fourteen sports.”
As her three-year contract was coming to an end, the plaintiff requested a new, five-year contract, with increased compensation, and a full-time assistant coach. DSU Vice President and Head of Human Resources Mark Farley informed the plaintiff that any new contract would have to wait until the school hired a new athletics director.
With that understanding, the plaintiff left for leadership conference. While she was away, DSU hired a new Athletic Director, Chuck Bell, to a three-year contract. After Hayes returned, Bell met with her and indicated that “he would authorize a pay raise (making her pay more compatible with the males in the department), and advised her that he wanted her to stop coaching and become a full time administrator, but did not provide her with a contract,” according to the plaintiff. The AD memorialized that intent in July 2005 when he announced that she was being promoted to associate athletics director, and would continue as head track coach until the end of the 2005-2006 academic year, but would be a full time administrator after that.
Things appeared to go off-track later that summer when the school hired a male Senior Associate Athletics Director, Dr. Ricardo Hooper. Shortly thereafter, alleged the plaintiff, Bell and Hooper “either removed or demoted other senior female administrative staff in the department replacing them with males.” They also eliminated the position of assistant to the SWA, which the plaintiff alleges was a required position under the school’s Gender Equity Plan. In addition, “Bell and Hooper removed job responsibilities from the plaintiff, giving supervision of women’s sports to male administrators, and telling the plaintiff she would no longer be working with men’s sports,” according to the complaint.
By the fall of 2005, Hayes “realized that Hooper did not treat women and men the same way, stating that he acted abusively towards her and other women, and at one point responded in a hostile manner when plaintiff would not fire another female employee.”
She ultimately complained to AD Bell, who advised her that Hooper was a “hot head” and that plaintiff should try to “help him learn to deal with people.”
The relationship between Hooper and Hayes got worse in December of 2005, when Hopper “falsely accused her of not submitting documents to Human Resources” about a strength and conditioning coach. He also allegedly informed her that “he could have her fired and could easily start the process.” Bell’s response, wrote the court, “was that the plaintiff would have to live with Hooper’s behavior as he was to become the next athletics director.”
The friction continued through the spring, with the plaintiff ultimately meeting with the president, Sessoms, while attending a Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference meeting in Raleigh. In her complaint, Hayes said she “complained about Hooper’s abusive and harassing behavior toward her and his threats to fire her, stating that she believed Hooper’s treatment was because she was female and that he did not treat male coaches and administrators in the same way. Sessoms reassured plaintiff that Hooper could not fire her, that she was not the problem, and that he would investigate and handle the matter. The plaintiff later learned that Bell was outraged about the meeting.”
In late spring 2006, Hayes wrote a letter to Farley complaining of Hooper’s “’abusive, hostile and harassing behavior,’ providing a detailed chronology of events and requesting ‘respect and a less hostile work environment’ ….
“Approximately three days later, Fred Reynolds, defendant’s Director of Compliance, e-mailed plaintiff a memo questioning whether she had granted a release from DSU to a student athlete.”
Shortly before taking her team to the Penn Relays, Hayes was ultimately placed on administrative leave “due to the allegation that she had coerced a student athlete and committed an NCAA violation. The plaintiff again refuted these allegations, and suggested to Farley that he check protocol with other universities. Farley eventually confirmed that the plaintiff was correct and allowed her to attend the Penn Relays with her team.”
The situation continued to disintegrate, with the university ultimately deciding not to renew the plaintiff’s contract, but opting to keep her on the payroll in an unofficial capacity. That said, the plaintiff claimed that she obtained assurances that she could attend the Leadership Institute’s graduation in June 2006 as a university designee. However, when she arrived, she learned she was not listed “as an affiliate of any university, nor were her credentials displayed as they were for other graduates. This caused plaintiff embarrassment and humiliation and eliminated her from recruitment efforts by other schools for senior athletic administrative positions.”
The plaintiff also claimed that she “attempted to institute the grievance process, but defendant was unresponsive. At no time did plaintiff ever receive notice of non-renewal of her contract, or an offer of substantially equivalent alternative employment. Since her termination from the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered severe economic consequences; continues to have lost wages and benefits, which will continue for an indefinite time; has suffered embarrassment, humiliation, extreme emotional distress, and anxiety; and suffered damage to her reputation.”
The plaintiff asserted three counts against DSU, all in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. First, the plaintiff asserted a claim of sex discrimination based on her termination from employment, the defendant’s prevention of the plaintiff from attending various tournaments and meetings, the defendant’s refusal to allow the plaintiff to continue coaching the women’s track team for spring 2006, not providing the plaintiff with a contract, and making false accusations against the plaintiff. The plaintiff also asserts claims of gender harassment and a hostile work environment. Lastly, the plaintiff brings a claim of retaliation on the basis that the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment, did not permit her to coach the women’s track team for part of the 2006 season, prohibited her from attending various tournaments and meetings, did not provide a contract, made false accusations against her, and contacted the Leadership Institute.”
The key contention in the defendant’s motion to dismiss was that the allegations are time-barred.
While the court agreed with DSU that some of the claims did fall outside the statute of limitations – allegations of wrongful accusation prior to March 23, 2006 — many more were not.
The plaintiff may still put on evidence of these accusations to provide background supporting her remaining claims. Further, “because defendant made no explicit communication to the plaintiff regarding the status of her contract before March 23, 2006, this claim is not time-barred. All other claims following March 23, 2006 may proceed. Lastly, because plaintiff alleged parts of her hostile work environment claim that occurred after March 23, 2006, plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim may proceed.”
Constancia Simpson Hayes v. Delaware State University; D. Del.; Civ. No. 09-926-SLR, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76594; 7/29/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Barbara H. Stratton, Esquire of Knepper & Stratton, Wilmington, Delaware. (for defendant) Robert A. Ranieri, Esquire of Salmon, Ricchezza, Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
