By Gary J. Chester, Senior Writer
It took the Jacksonville Jaguars less than 48 hours to force newly hired strength coach Chris Doyle to resign amidst a controversy arising from his alleged abusive, racist conduct while coaching at the University of Iowa. The Jaguars decided Doyle wasn’t a good look for a professional football team. This posture stands in sharp contrast to some high school and college administrations that double down in supporting allegedly abusive coaches.
A case in point is Haley v. Desoto Par. Sch. Bd., Civ. No. 20-0476 (W.D. La. 2021), which arose out of misconduct by a cheerleading coach at a summer camp in 2019. Rather than investigate and punish the offending coach, the school district that employed the coach supported her over three student cheerleaders who complained about her abusive behavior.
When schools support coaches who misbehave, rather than heed the concerns of students and their parents, it invariably results in litigation.
The Facts
Three members of the Mansfield High School (Louisiana) cheerleading squad attended a summer cheerleading camp where their coach, Stephanie Brewer, allegedly bullied them. When the three girls complained, Brewer taped the girls’ mouths shut in response. When one of the girls removed the tape and asked Brewer if she could call her parents, the coach said no and told the child to replace the tape.
Following the summer camp, Brewer treated the three students differently from other cheerleaders, allegedly in retaliation for reporting the taping incident to their parents. One episode took place at a football game where Brewer told the girls to shut “the fuck-up!” Brewer subsequently removed the girls from their officer positions on the team, prompting them to quit.
There were several meetings between the children’s parents and school officials, one of which resulted in an apology for the taping incident and another in which the school principal, Toras Hill, threatened to bar a parent from the school if he pursued any legal claims.
The Complaint
Undaunted, the parents of the three students filed a civil complaint against the DeSoto Parish School Board, Brewer and Hill seeking both injunctive and monetary relief. The complaint set forth causes of action pursuant to:
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Brewer and Hill violated the children’s free speech and due process rights when Brewer taped their mouths shut and by retaliating against them for telling their parents what Brewer had done;
- Title IX because female cheerleaders were treated differently from male cheerleaders; and,
- The common law torts of assault and battery.
The Motions to Dismiss
The defendants did not initially file answers to the complaint, instead opting to file motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires the trial judge to determine if the plaintiffs have filed legally cognizable claims.
As to the free speech and due process claims, the plaintiffs had to prove that the defendants acted under color of state law when they violated the children’s rights. To do so, the plaintiffs needed show that the school district effectuated a policy or custom that resulted in a constitutional violation. Since the plaintiffs were unable to point to any policy or custom, the court dismissed these claims against the school board and the individuals acting in their official capacity.
As to the Section 1983 allegations against Brewer in her individual capacity, the court denied her motion to dismiss the free speech claim while dismissing the due process claim. The court reasoned that Brewer “knew taping the children’s mouths, literally silencing their comments, infringed upon their right to speak freely.” But the court found that Brewer was entitled to qualified immunity against the claim for violation of due process because the right to be free from this sort of restraint that the children could easily remove was not clearly established in Louisiana law. (The court distinguished the case from a case in which children were sexually molested and a case in which a student was strapped to a chair.)
The court declined to dismiss the retaliation claims against Hill and Brewer because the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that the children were treated with hostility because they reported the taping incident.
As to Title IX, which provides that no person “shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance [20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)],” the court recognized that the threshold requirement to survive a motion to dismiss is very low. The plaintiff must merely show that the alleged facts are plausible. [See, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002).] However, the court dismissed the claim because the “blanket accusation” that Mansfield High never taped the mouths of their male students shut was a “conclusory” statement not amounting to a plausible claim to relief.
Finally, the court dismissed the assault and battery claims against Hill, but not Brewer. Both individual defendants asserted immunity from civil lawsuits pursuant to La. R.S. § 17:439(A), which grants civil immunity to school employees for any statement or action taken “in the course and scope of his/her employment.” The court recognized that Hill did not participate in taping the children’s mouths shut. As to Brewer, the court noted that statutory immunity did not apply to conduct that is “intended to cause bodily harm to a student or to harass or intimidate a student.”
The Takeaway
One of the lessons of Haley is that an apology may not be sufficient to excuse unacceptable behavior by a coach or teacher. Parents often demand disciplinary action such as suspension or termination and are more than willing to litigate on behalf of their children if they are not satisfied with a school district’s response.
Also notable: the plaintiffs did not plead that Brewer was liable under Louisiana’s anti-bullying/hazing statute, R.S. 17:183, because of its narrow scope. The state anti-bullying applies to improper behavior “by any student” and, therefore, does not appear to cover coaches or other employees. Also, the law specifically exempts certain activities, stating as follows: “Hazing does not mean any adult-directed and school-sanctioned athletic program practice or event or military training program.” (La. R.S. 17 § 193(B)(2)).
Although the plaintiffs undoubtedly would have appreciated the benefit of discovery on the Title IX claims that were dismissed, the assault and battery claims and the retaliation claims against Brewer would seem to afford the trier of fact with a sufficient basis for redressing the inappropriate conduct of the cheerleading coach.
Gary J. Chester is an attorney, adjunct business law and sports law professor at Montclair State University (N.J.) and national lecturer on the law of sports.
