A federal judge from the Eastern District of California has denied a community college’s motion to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit brought by several African American football players, finding sufficient substance in the claims to sustain the lawsuit.
The ruling subsequently led the Board of Trustees for the defendant, the Feather River Community College District (FRC), to authorize the college’s president to settle the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs Emory Boyd Jr., Quinton Hancock and Nicholos Page alleged that they were recruited to play football on the FRC football team, paid out-of-state tuition, and did all that was required of them to participate in FRC’s athletic program as members of the football team.
As such, the plaintiffs expected that upon successful completions of the FRC program that they “would receive the best efforts of the football coaching staff to place them at four year colleges with scholarships.”
Instead, the plaintiffs allegedly “suffered racially discriminatory treatment from Assistant Coach Josh White, including being unfairly criticized, personally insulted, verbally abused, and taunted.” They further alleged that Head Coach James Johnson and White “favored less committed and less skilled white players over their African American counterparts, gave white players more playing time and more opportunities on the field, and treated them in a more favorable and less hostile manner.” In addition, “White’s racist behavior went so far as to include physical attacks on African American students, calling African American students derogatory names and attempting to provoke fights with them.”
The plaintiffs alleged that FRC Athletic Director Merle Trueblood and Johnson were made aware of “White’s racially hostile conduct, but failed to take corrective action. Instead, between 2009-2010, the defendants changed FRC’s football team from predominantly black to predominantly white, and in the course of doing so unfairly cut the plaintiffs from the football team in order to replace them with white players. The plaintiffs alleged that they were eligible both academically and athletically to return to play football for FRC in the 2010-2011 season.”
The plaintiffs alleged “violations of Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.” The defendants, FRC and the aforementioned men, moved to dismiss the claims for failure to plead sufficient facts to support the claims.
The first claim for relief, brought against FRC, alleged that the plaintiffs were subjected to a racially hostile educational environment, in violation of Title VI, and that FRC did not take steps to end the harassment.
The defendants argued that the claim should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing that they were harassed because of their race. Further, they argued that the allegations “do not show severe or pervasive harassment, rather, the decision to drop certain players from the team, or give certain players more time on the field, are personnel management decisions, not instances of discrimination.”
The court disagreed. “A plaintiff does not need to prove intent until trial,” wrote the judge, citing Monteiro v. The Tempe Union High School Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). “The plaintiffs have alleged that the harassment and discrimination was racially motivated and further, the court can infer that the plaintiffs were being harassed based on their race from the wealth of allegations. At this early stage in the pleadings, the allegations of inferior treatment of African American football players and a purging of African Americans from the football team, coupled with the swearing, name-calling and general hostility aimed at the plaintiffs, are sufficient to show severe and pervasive racial discrimination for a hostile educational environment claim.”
The court also sided with the plaintiffs regarding their argument that Trueblood and Johnson interfered with the contract they had with FRC in violation of 42 U.S.C. ¶ 1981. The plaintiffs claimed that they paid tuition to FRC for educational services and in return FRC entered into a contractual relationship to provide access to FRC programs, activities and instruction. “In the past, the policy was to accept all returning players who were academically eligible,” wrote the court. “Trueblood and Johnson had the authority from FRC to recruit or reject student athletes for the football team, and used this authority to change the usual policy in a racially discriminatory manner, preventing the plaintiffs from returning to the football team and obtaining the benefits that they expected from attendance at FRC.” The court added that the plaintiffs’ allegations “are sufficient at this stage of the pleadings to show that Plaintiffs were denied the benefits that they contracted for,” necessitating the dismissal of the defendants’ motion to dismiss on that claim.
Similarly, the court ruled for the plaintiffs on the question of whether their rights had been denied under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants treated “black student-athletes differently than white student-athletes” when a higher number of black students were cut from the team in comparison to the number of white students cut from the team.
Emory Boyd, Jr., et al. v. Feather River Community College District et al.; E.D. Cal.; Case No. 2:11-CV-0231 JAM-EFB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121683; 10/20/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Diane K Vaillancourt, Diane K. Vaillancourt Attorney at Law, Santa Cruz, CA; Terri H. Keyser-Cooper, Law Office of Terri Keyser-Cooper, Reno, NV. (for defendants) Jennifer Lynn Hippo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, Sacramento, CA.
