The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned, in part, a district court’s ruling in a case in which a University of Connecticut soccer player, Noriana Radwan, sued after she was dismissed from the team and later stripped of her scholarship following an incident where she “flipped the bird” in celebration after a victory at an ESPNU camera during a live broadcast of a match.
While the court let stand the part of the lower court’s ruling that dismissed Radwan’s First Amendment and procedural due process claims under the U.S. Constitution, it overturned its determination that the plaintiff had not presented enough evidence of a Title IX violation to withstand the defendant’s summary judgment motion.
Radwan had claimed she was treated more harshly than her male counterparts would have been, under “a theory of selective enforcement.”
The comparison she made involved a UConn football player, Adams, who kicked the ball in the stands, but received only a 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.
The panel of judges on the appeals court reasoned that “[c]onstruing this evidence most favorably to Radwan, a reasonable juror could conclude that [the male football player] was similarly situated to Radwan in all material respects, but received more favorable treatment as to the alleged misconduct.” The court continued, “Both student-athletes were on full scholarships, both engaged in what was defined as unsportsmanlike conduct, and both engaged in such conduct in public, while in uniform on the playing field. Further, both were first-time offenders, [Athletic Director Warde] Manuel was personally aware of both incidents, and both student-athletes later expressed remorse. Indeed, a jury could reasonably find that [the football player’s] misbehavior was the more serious of the two, because, unlike Radwan’s fleeting gesture to the camera, [the football player’s] actions were not only embarrassing to the university, but also jeopardized the team’s chance of victory and could have physically endangered spectators.”
Moreover, “UConn provides several explanations as to why Radwan and Adams are not similarly situated. However, in this case, a jury needs to decide whether these distinctions are material and resolve any conflicting inferences that could be reasonably drawn from the differing facts.”
The “evidence, taken as a whole and construed most favorably to Radwan as the non-moving party, is sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact as to whether Radwan received a more serious disciplinary sanction at UConn because of her gender,” the court added.
There were also other alleged incidents of alleged disparate treatment, according to the plaintiff, which resonated with the court.
“Shortly after UConn initiated disciplinary proceedings against Radwan, four male UConn basketball players—two of whom had full athletic scholarships—missed curfew during a tournament in Puerto Rico and were sent home to Connecticut early…The basketball coach and AD Manuel (who was personally aware of the incident) instituted no disciplinary proceedings and took no action to terminate the players’ scholarships.”
The panel also noted that during Manuel’s tenure as AD “from March 2012 to March 2016, no male student-athlete was ever permanently removed from his team, or had his scholarship terminated, for a first instance of unsportsmanlike conduct.”
UConn spokesperson Stephanie Reitz expressed disappointment and issued the following statement to the media: “To be clear, the appeals court did not find that the plaintiff was treated more harshly than her male peers,” she said. “The court simply found that she presented sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment.”
