A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has granted the summary judgment motion of Iona College in a case where a former assistant basketball coach alleged that he was fired because his wife was black.
In ruling for the school, the court found that plaintiff Craig Holcomb failed to show that the school’s proffered reasons for firing him and another assistant coach were mere pretext for the real discriminatory rationale.
Iona hired Holcomb in 1995 as an assistant coach of the men’s basketball team, a decision that was approved by then-Athletic Director Richard Petriccione. Holcomb retained his position even after the head coach that brought him on board took another position at another school and a new head coach was hired.
The new head coach was Jeff Ruland, an Iona alum and two-time NBA All Star, who was promoted to head coach. Ruland’s hiring sparked initial success for the program, which won the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAC) tournament in three of the next four years. Near the close of that run, Ruland signed a new eight-year contract, worth over $ 300,000 a year.
In addition, Petriccione was promoted from AD to Vice President for Advancement and External Affairs and Shawn Brennan, a former Iona coach, was hired as the new AD.
Despite the initial success under Ruland, the men’s basketball program entered a period of decline, limping to a 41-47 record from 2001 to 2004 and failing to earn a berth in the NCAA or NIT tournament during those three seasons. The program also had several off-the-court problems, centered on academics and various team rule violations.
Iona administrators resolved to shake up the program. In March 2004, Brennan was asked by the school president and the Iona Board of Trustees to put together a written evaluation of the program and to make recommendations for reform.
Ultimately, the AD, Brennan, recommended that the school continue to retain the three assistant coaches, but put the entire staff on notice. The report did not address the merits of the assistant coaches individually, aside from one line that praised one of the assistants, Rob O’Driscoll, for working well with others.
The president and the board received the report, but were “adamant that more direct action should be taken.” Thus, two of the three assistants were fired.
After his termination, Holcomb filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging that he was dismissed because of his status as the spouse of a minority. He based this assertion on two factors: first, actions taken by Brennan to restrict attendance at functions sponsored by the Goal Club, the Athletic Department’s alumni fundraising arm; and second, Petriccione’s history of racist and racially insensitive conduct.
Holcomb then brought suit against the college under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The defendant moved for summary judgment, spawning the instant opinion.
The court began its analysis by noting that the Goal Club is an alumni fundraising and social organization dedicated to the support of Iona athletics. Members, most of whom are alumni (and white), pay an annual fee to the Athletics Department, and in return are invited to attend special functions and parties.
Holcomb alleged that during his tenure at Iona, Brennan informed him during a meeting that his wife, as well as her friend Iris Hansen (the African-American woman who was dating Ruland), would no longer be allowed to attend Goal Club functions because they were neither alumni nor donors. “Based on this conversation,” wrote the court, “Holcomb concluded that Iona was attempting to limit minority presence at its fund-raising events.”
As for Petriccione, Holcomb claimed he often used offensive language while speaking about Iona’s (mostly black) men’s basketball team. As early as 1995 or 1996, Holcomb heard Petroccione say, “Everybody at Fordham thinks they have these good black kids and Iona has niggers.” Holc. Dep. at 123:9-11. A year later, when several black members of the Gaels were accused of violating school rules by selling the use of their telephone access codes, Petriccione told Holcomb that there was no control in the basketball program and that the coaches needed to “…keep [their] niggers in line.” Id. at 124:24-125:1. Holcomb remembers being shocked, although he did not report these remarks to anyone at Iona at that time. Id. Petriccione allegedly used the same or similar language on numerous other occasions between 1997 and 2000. Id. at 127:7-12.
“Petriccione’s use of racial epithets in everyday speech was observed by other Iona employees after he was promoted to Vice President,” wrote the court. “According to Bonnie Sirower, Director of Annual Giving under Petriccione, he often used inappropriate language in the office, such as referring to an Italian-American graduate as a “guinea,” to Sirower herself as “his favorite Jew,” and to a Nigerian member of the Alumni Giving Office as a “jungle bunny” and an “African princess.” Deposition of Bonnie Sirower at 16:7-18:9.
Evaluation of Holcomb’s Claim
The court wrote that claims of employment discrimination are analyzed under the “burden-shifting” framework defined in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), and Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981).
After the plaintiff and the defendant each met their initial, respective burdens, the plaintiff faces the requirement of establishing “by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reasons for his termination were pretextual, and that the motivating factor for his termination was racial discrimination. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993)
“… Holcomb has not established any facts that link these alleged racist tendencies to the administration’s evaluation of the basketball program. Even if I were to discount the testimony of Brennan and Petriccione, the alleged malefactors, the substance of Brennan’s final report, is unequivocal: he states that firing the assistants would be ‘detrimental to the program’ and recommends keeping them. The record also makes clear that Brennan made this recommendation after (the president) indicated that he leaned towards firing some or all of the coaching staff. If Brennan were indeed trying to influence Iona’s evaluation in order to get rid of Holcomb, his strong advocacy of a compromise that would have let the assistants keep their jobs was hardly the way to do it.
“Moreover, Brennan and Petriccione vocally advocated to (the president) that, if Ruland could not be bought out of his large contract, the assistant coaches should be retained. (The president), who is not linked to any past discriminatory conduct, took responsibility for overturning Brennan’s recommendation and ordering the two assistants fired. In sum, Holcomb’s contention that Brennan and Petriccione were behind the decision to fire the assistant coaches has no basis in the evidence.”
Craig Holcomb v. Iona College; S.D.N.Y.; 05 Civ. 0848 (CM)(GAY); 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50437; 7/11/06
Attorneys of Record: (for the plaintiff) Thomas J Fleming, Olshan, Grundman, Frome & Rosenzweig, New York, NY. (for the defendant) Anthony Daniel Dougherty, Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York, NY.
