By Professor Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
In August 2019, Coach Sheronda Powell was hired by Doane University of Crete, Nebraska to head the school’s women’s basketball team. Approximately three months later, after a series of complaints were filed with both the athletic department and human resources by a number of team members, Coach Powell was fired from her coaching duties by the University. Coach Powell, however, alleges that she was unlawfully terminated because of the complaints she made about inadequate resources for female athletes compared to the school’s male counterparts, together with the fact that a request for assistance in handling a problem with one of her assistant coaches was ignored by the school’s athletic director, Matt Franzen.
As a result of this dispute, on October 16, 2020, Coach Powell filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska against Doane University asserting claims of employment discrimination based on gender and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and Gender Discrimination in violation of Title IXof the Education Amendment of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.[1] Doane University, maintaining that Coach Powell was terminated for performance-related issues, subsequently moved for summary judgement on the entirety of Coach Powell’s Complaint.[2]
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[3]The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has articulated the standard as follows:
“Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). A fact is “material” if it may “affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “An issue is genuine if the evidence is sufficient to persuade a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Schilf v. Eli Lilly & Co., 687 F.3d 947, 948 (8th Cir. 2012).
An employee may survive an employer’s attempt for summary judgement two ways: by either direct evidence or, where there is insufficient direct evidence, with indirect evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework. The Eighth Circuit has found that the applicable burden-shifting framework per McDonnell Douglas is as follows:
“To establish prima facie retaliation claim underMcDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must show (1) she engaged in protected conduct, (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the action. If the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual.” McCullough v. Univ. of Arkansas for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 2009).
The District Court, in focusing on the material facts “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law”, found the following to be most pertinent to the Coach’s claims: (a) Coach Powell’s alleged problems with her team’s uniforms and technology; (b) Coach Powell’s alleged problems with the athletic training and medical care available to her players; (c) Athletic Director Mat Franzen’s handling of Coach Powell’s disputes with Assistant Coach Marissa Webb; (d) other coaches’ and players’ complaints about Coach Powell made to both Athletic Director Matt Franzen and HR; (e) other coaches’ and a player’s resignations from the Doane women’s basketball team; and (f) Powell’s termination.
After analyzing these various material facts, the Court determined that there was no direct evidence of discrimination, stating that the record shows beyond dispute that many things motivated the University to terminate Coach Powell, namely, numerous complaints of her misconduct and the occurrence and risk of her players and coaches quitting the team.[4] In comparison, the only potential evidence of “alleged discriminatory animus” is a single comment by the athletic director which described the dispute between Coach Powell and her assistant Coach Webb as “a female thing.” Based upon such, the District Court found that no reasonable jury could find that the athletic director’s comment “shows a strong causal connection” between an intent to discriminate based on sex and Powell’s termination.[5]
Regarding any indirect evidence as per the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, the District Court found that Coach Powell repeatedly and systematically ventured beyond any reasonable inferences from the factual accounts as alleged and that even an “improper twisting” of these accounts could be used as evidence of a discriminatory pretext for termination, no reasonable jury could find that such actually did occur.[6] As such, the U.S. District Court for the District for the District of Nebraska found that there were no issues of genuine disputes of the material facts between the parties and ruled that Doane University is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
[1] Case 8:20-cv-0427, document filed 10/16/2020.
[2] Case 8:20-CV-0427, document filing 83.
[4] Powell v. Doane Uni., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177749, 2023 WL 644583.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
