By Alexis Sokach
The plaintiffs in this case are the former coaches of Highland Community College’s women’s basketball team – BJ Smith, Bradford Zinn, and Jered Ross. The coaches asserted multiple claims against Highland Community College (HCC), the HCC board of trustees, Russel Karn (a board member), Deborah Fox (the President of HCC) and Athletic Director Bryan Dorrel.
The coaches had been very successful at HCC, managing to maintain the highest win-loss record in HCC history, sending a multitude of players Division I, and graduating 100% of their student-athletes. However, in late 2019, head coach BJ Smith was called into a meeting with the athletic director. In this meeting Dorrel allegedly informed Smith that his players were an embarrassment to the school community and directed him to start recruiting more players that were of the culture that the community could relate to. It is important to understand this conversation considering the demographics of Highland, Kansas, where HCC is located. The 2010 census of Highland showed that almost 85% of the residents were white, 10% of the residents were African American, and the rest of the population was made up of other minorities or joint races. Soon after this meeting, Smith secured commitments from two stand-out African American players in the Kansas City area. Learning of their commitments, Dorrel asked Smith if “these are really the kind of players we want at Highland.” Dorrel continuously pressured the athletic coaches to stop recruiting players with “dreadlocks and wicks” in favor of recruiting white student-athletes.
Toward the end of 2019 Smith, Zinn, and Ross were all accused of NJCAA violations and academic misconduct. HCC suspended all three coaches without notice or hearing and prohibited them from entering campus or contacting the team. The players and their parents were told by Fox and Dorrel that the coaches had been doing players homework and even recommended to one player’s father that she transfer schools. Fox and Dorrel informed the team that the allegations were both severe and solid against the coaches. Dorrel openly stated that HCC had ample evidence of obvious, flagrant, and intentional violations, calling them the “worst” he had seen in his 25-year tenure in collegiate sports.
A board meeting was held, but the coaches were not provided any advance notice and when they requested to have their lawyers present, they were denied. The board members admitted that HCC’s purported investigation did not reveal any academic misconduct or other violations of NJCAA bylaws. Smith was reinstated, but Ross and Zinn were continued on suspension. In March 2020, HCC gave Zinn and Ross the option to resign and informed them that their contracts would not be renewed for another season. In June 2020, Fox demanded that Smith resign from his position and informed him that his contract also would not be renewed. All three coaches ended up blacklisted in the collegiate coaching market.
The case ended up in the US District Court for the District of Kansas. The court evaluated four main topics, revolving around several charges: a procedural due process claim, liberty interests of the coaches, race discrimination and retaliation claims, and individual and official separation within the discrimination claim.
The coaches claimed that they were suspended by HCC without due process in December 2019 and had neither notice of the purported allegations against them nor a hearing before being suspended. In response, HCC contended that the plaintiffs did not possess any protectable property or a liberty interest. Smith, Zinn, and Ross all claimed that they had a protectible property interest in their continued government employment. Smith and Zinn’s claims were treated separately from Ross’ claim because Ross was an at-will employee, while Smith and Zinn had 10-month contracts. The court found that Smith and Zinn, even though their contracts were for a specific period without promise for renewal, had a property interest in their contracts being renewed. The court stated that the contract did not just rely on the past contract renewals, but rather it relied on the history of producing a high-quality athletic program and students with academic achievement. The district court decided that Smith and Zinn’s claims should not be foreclosed as a matter of law, as HCC had previously asked. Ross also sufficiently pled a protectible property interest in his continued employment. The court’s decision as it pertained to Ross relied on the parties’ past actions, mutual understandings, and underlying circumstances, specifically the previous practice of contract renewal.
The coaches also alleged deprivation of their protected liberty interests in their good name and reputation when HCC made statements falsely accusing them of misconduct. HCC did not contest that there were defamatory statements made, but instead contended that loss of future employment does not constitute a significant change in legal status under the “stigma-plus” framework. A public employee has a liberty interest in his good name and reputation as they relate to his continued employment. The Tenth Circuit recently explained that the classic stigma-plus claim in the context of public employment involves a governmental supervisor who defames the employee during termination, foreclosing other employment opportunities. Accordingly, the defamation alleged by the plaintiffs here was decided by the court to rise to a constitutional level and was therefore sufficient to state a protectible liberty interest.
Finally, HCC asked that the race discrimination and retaliation claims be dismissed due to improper pleading. The court found, however, that the original claim was brought under 42 USC §1983 and that the 42 USC §1981 claim was an underlying violation claim. The court stated that the coaches correctly used §1983 as a vehicle for their §1981 claim. Therefore, the court dismissed the race discrimination and retaliation claims against Fox and Dorrel in their official capacity because they were already pled against the two as agents of the larger entity of HCC.
Based on the above findings of fact and law, the US District Court for the District of Kansas granted the HCC’s partial motion for judgment in part and denied it in part. Other than the official capacity claims in the race discrimination and retaliation counts, HCC’s other motions were denied.
Smith v. Highland Cmty. Coll., No. 22-CV-02048-JAR-ADM, 2023 WL 372016 (D. Kan. Jan. 24, 2023)
