A federal magistrate judge from the Middle District of Alabama has left intact part of a discrimination/retaliation claim against Alabama State University (ASU), which was initiated by the school’s former women’s softball coach. ASU had filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part.
The plaintiff in the case was Telma Hall, who served as the school’s softball coach from Oct.17, 2005 until May 2, 2014. Hall also served as an adjunct professor, teaching physical education and wellness classes. During her tenure, Hall served under athletic directors Stacy Danley and Melvin Hines.
As an adjunct professor, Hall was a part-time, at-will employee. The length of a contract for an adjunct professor is one semester. As a coach, Hall was classified as a Special Athletic Appointee. Head coaches at ASU are responsible for their programs, including recruiting, ensuring athletes have a rewarding experience, requesting budgets, and reporting violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules.
Salaries and fringe benefits of coaches at ASU are set when the coaches are hired. Each head coach is given a salary pool that he or she divides among the number of paid assistant coaches the NCAA allows for that sport. ASU’s president and Board of Trustees have to approve the assistant coach salaries, however. Each sports [delete] team’s travel and recruitment budget is established with a specific amount set out in the total budget for that sport.
Hall was hired at a salary of $34,000 per year with no performance-based bonuses and no car allowance. In June 2011, Hall made a request that the salary of the softball assistant coach be increased. In July of that year, she emailed Danley, who was then the athletic director, about increasing the budget and salaries for the softball program.
Mervyl Melendez was a male employee of ASU who was hired as the head baseball coach in 2011 at an annual base salary of $125,000, with a car allowance, a signing bonus, and additional bonuses and performance bonus opportunities. Jose Vazquez and Drew Clark were hired as the associate coach and assistant coach for baseball. Vazquez received a salary of $80,000 per year and Clark was paid $40,000 per year.
In November 2011, Hall filed a complaint with Danley about gender equity and salary concerns in the softball program. In January 2012, Hall filed an internal Title IX complaint, which was denied on April 12, 2012, and she was told that there was no avenue for appealing this decision.
Hines became acting athletic director in September 2012. He was hired as athletic director in 2014.
In February 2013, Hall filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge alleging gender discrimination in pay and terms of employment. In her EEOC charge, Hall complained that the baseball head coach had a salary of $125,000 in 2012 compared to her salary of $38,079 and that she had no potential for performance bonuses.
Also in February 2013, Hall signed her first contract that did include performance-based bonuses for her and her assistant coaches, along with a car allowance. One bonus was based on the Academic Progress Rate (APR) of her team members, which is the measurement of the students’ academic success. Melendez’s contract also included bonus opportunities but included bonuses and bonus opportunities that Hall’s contract did not contain.
A July 24, 2013 Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Resolution Agreement entered into by ASU required it to “improve its hiring practices to attract more qualified coaches to the women’s programs, by seeking coaches with more coaching experience by increasing compensation packages and other conditions of employment so that the positions offered are equivalent to those provided to coaches hired for the men’s teams,” but did not require that Hall’s salary be increased.
In August 2013, Hines conducted a performance appraisal of Hall. Hall received a score of “Requires Improvement” in the areas of quantity and quality of work and policies and procedures. At the time, Hall’s overall winning percentage as softball coach was below 40 percent and the APR rate for the softball team was below the NCAA’s requirement.
In February 2014, Gwendolyn Boyd was hired as president of ASU.
On March 2, 2014, the parents of a softball player sent an email to officials in the athletic department at ASU, and to Boyd, complaining about Hall. Another set of parents followed with an email complaint on March 3, 2014. The parents’ complaints included allegations that Hall did not provide sufficient food to the athletes during team travel, that athletes were left on a bus, and that practice hours prevented students from eating in the cafeteria.
The next day, March 4, 2014, Zillah Fluker, Interim Vice President in ASU’s Office of Human Resources, sent a letter to Hall placing her on administrative leave with pay. As a result of her administrative leave, Hall was not allowed to have any contact with students on campus, to teach, or to continue to take her own graduate-level classes. Hines referred the investigation of the complaints against Hall to attorney Michael Buckner.
Hall testified in her deposition that while she was at ASU, the tennis coach and a baseball coach, Larry Watkins, were allowed to teach classes after they had been removed as coaches. Willie Dixon, the Director of Human Resources at ASU, testified in her deposition that ASU’s provost would have to decide whether a coach who is also a teacher would be entitled to remain on duty as a teacher if removed as a coach.
Hall presented evidence that Melendez was not banned from campus or from contact with students even though a parent complained that he was requiring athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs and he was investigated for possible NCAA violations. Hall argues in her brief that Reggie Barlow and Craig Payne, who were football coaches, were investigated after they left ASU for violations of NCAA rules. Hall also contends that Brian Jenkins was hired by ASU as a football coach even though there had been allegations against him for NCAA violations.
On April 28, 2014, Hines recommended to John Knight, ASU’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, that Hall be terminated from her employment. Hall’s notice of termination was issued on May 2, 2014. At the time the recommendation for termination was made, the NCAA investigation had not concluded.
On Aug. 7, 2014, Hall amended her EEOC charge to include a claim of retaliation.
On July 19, 2016, Hall sued, alleging discrimination on the basis of her gender and retaliation for complaining about different treatment on the basis of gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII). Specifically, in her complaint Hall brought a claim of discrimination on the basis of gender (Count I) for the following actions: paying her less than similarly situated male employees, denying her contracts with the same terms and benefits, providing her sport with less financial support, suspending her, terminating her employment, failing to follow university policies, and subjecting her to stricter scrutiny. She also stated a claim of retaliation (Count II) based on actions taken against her during her employment. ASU moved for summary judgment.
The court noted that it would rely on the burden-shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) in considering the discrimination claim. In general, the framework requires the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. Then the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action. The plaintiff then has the obligation to show the reason was mere pretext.
“Hall contends that when ASU suspended her without pay and required her to stay away from campus, it treated her differently than it had treated male coaches with allegations against them,” wrote the court. “When a parent made a complaint against baseball head coach Melendez, Hall argues that he was not suspended, was provided notice of the allegations against him, and participated in the investigation.”
ASU’s position was that Melendez “did not engage in similar behavior to Hall and that it had to separate Hall from ASU students immediately because she was accused of putting a student in danger.”
The court sided with Hall, writing that the “evidentiary material regarding the investigation of Melendez … shows him to be an appropriate comparator for purposes of the McDonnell Douglas analysis. A baseball parent alleged ‘numerous violations of NCAA regulations and federal and state law by Melendez and the baseball program (including, but not limited to, the use of performance enhancing drugs by baseball student-athletes and discrimination against non-Hispanic baseball student athletes).’”
The court continued: “ASU’s articulated reason for placing Hall on suspension is that the allegations against her involved athlete safety. Again, in light of Boyd’s deposition testimony regarding allegations against a coach for requiring steroid use of athletes, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant, the court concludes that a reasonable jury could conclude that ASU policy was not followed in Hall’s situation.” The court denied the summary judgment motion as to this part of the claim.
As for the suspension from teaching, the court wrote that Hall’s failure to identify “a male coach from any sport (who) was suspended or removed from his coaching job based on complaints against him but allowed to continue teaching classes” means the she has not presented “sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in suspension from teaching or taking classes.” The court granted the summary judgment motion as to this part of the claim.
Some of the more notable findings in the rest of the opinion included the denial of summary judgment to ASU in the claim that the plaintiff suffered discrimination because she was denied performance-based bonuses, and the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the pay disparity claim.
Regarding the former, Hall claimed Melendez had 21 different bonus and performance bonus opportunities. “A defendant’s burden in articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision is exceedingly light,” wrote the court, citing Turnes v. AmSouth Bank, NA, 36 F.3d 1057, 1061 (11th Cir. 1994). “The employer need only offer admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether it had a legitimate reason for not hiring the plaintiff. Id. Although the burden is one of production, not persuasion, the employer does have to produce a reason for the employment action that was available to it at the time of the decision. Id. Upon review of the voluminous initial brief, reply brief, and evidence offered by ASU in support of its motion, the court is unable to find any discussion or citation to evidence relating to a reason for the denial of performance-based bonuses. The court must conclude, therefore, that ASU did not meet its burden in moving for summary judgment as to this aspect of the claim.”
Regarding the latter, the court found that ASU articulated “a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for paying Hall less in salary than the head coach and associate and assistant coaches for baseball–namely, that the baseball team had better performance and Melendez, the head coach, had more experience as a coach.”
Telma Hall v. Alabama State University; M.D. Ala.; CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-593-GMB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145149; 8/27/18
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Candis Annette McGowan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, Birmingham, AL; Lacey K Danley, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb, Birmingham, AL; Sabrina LeAnne Comer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Comer Elder Law LLC, Montgomery, AL. (for defendant) Joi Charisse Scott, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alabama State University, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL; Kenneth Lamar Thomas, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of General Counsel, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL; Ramadanah Maryum Salaam-Jones, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL.
