A federal judge from the Eastern District of Texas has found enough unanswered questions to deny a school district’s motion to dismiss the claim of a student athlete, who alleged that her rights were violated when her coach disclosed her sexual orientation.
Among other things, the court found that Kilgore Independent School District (KISD) was uneven in the application of its policy around disclosure of such information.
The impetus for the litigation was an incident that occurred on March 3, 2009, involving S.W., then a 16 year old minor, and the coaching staff of KISD’s softball team, Rhonda Fletcher and Cassandra Newell.
According to the plaintiff, the coaches dismissed the remainder of the team after a practice that day. They allegedly led S.W. into an empty locker room, locking the door behind them. They then started questioning S.W. about her relationship with an older woman named Hillary Nutt. “Fletcher also accused S.W. of spreading a rumor that Ms. Nutt was ‘Coach Newell’s ex-girlfriend,’” wrote the court, citing the complaint. “S.W. initially denied the coaches’ accusations, which angered the coaches. Fletcher proceeded to advance in close on S.W., yelling at her, threatening to sue her for slander and calling her a liar. Eventually, S.W. admitted that she and Ms. Nutt were dating even though at the time of the confrontation, S.W. and Ms. Nutt had arranged a date but were not ‘dating.’ The coaches then threatened to tell S.W.’s mother that she was gay and having a sexual relationship with another woman. During the conversation, the coaches made it clear that S.W. would not be allowed to play softball until they told her mother this information.
“Shortly after this conversation, the coaches met with Ms. Wyatt and ‘Fletcher revealed S.W.’s sexual orientation to her mother by telling Ms. Wyatt that S.W. was dating a girl whom Fletcher described as S.W.’s girlfriend.’ Newell then offered Ms. Wyatt the contact information for Ms. Nutt.”
Wyatt ultimately informed the Kilgore High School athletic director, Douglas Duke, the school’s principal, and the KISD superintendent, Jody Clements, about what had happened. This led to Clements issuing a written report, responding to Wyatt’s allegations. The report defended the coaches’ actions, finding that they “are legally obligated to share this information with the parent,” citing “a policy requiring teachers to disclose students’ sexual orientation to their parents.”
The defendants argued that S.W. “was openly gay for several years prior to the incident and never attempted to keep her sexuality secret. Moreover, the defendants argue that S.W. was not a serious athlete and regularly disregarded team rules, making it difficult for her to be coached. Prior to joining the team, S.W. and Ms. Wyatt were required to sign a permission slip specifically limiting the persons with whom S.W. could ride to practice and games. S.W. broke this rule by riding to practice with Ms. Nutt on at least one occasion, according to the defendants.
“On March 3, 2009, the Coaches became aware of a rumor created by a note written by S.W. that claimed S.W. was dating Ms. Nutt, a person S.W. claimed to be Coach Newell’s ex-girlfriend,” wrote the court. “When the Coaches heard the rumor, they took it upon themselves to confront S.W. for three reasons: (1) they believed that Ms. Nutt was a bad influence on S.W. because Ms. Nutt had previously talked about drinking and smoking marijuana; (2) they believed the fact that Ms. Nutt was 18-years-old and S.W. was 16 ‘made any physical relationship between them a potential crime;’ and (3) the rumors were ‘causing dissension on the softball team.’”
The defendants alleged that they questioned S.W., but never physically confronted her.
“The coaches proceeded to call Ms. Wyatt and asked her to come to the softball field to discuss S.W.’s behavior,” wrote the court. “During the coaches’ discussion with Ms. Wyatt at the softball field, the coaches told Ms. Wyatt that S.W. was in an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with Ms. Nutt. The defendants argue that the coaches never used the word ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ and only revealed the identity of the person with whom S.W. was involved when Ms. Wyatt asked. The defendants further argue that Ms. Wyatt indicated to the coaches that she knew S.W. was homosexual.”
The plaintiff sued, charging that the coaches violated her right to keep her sexual orientation private by disclosing her sexual orientation to her mother. She also accused KISD of “promulgating policies that facilitated this unauthorized disclosure and failing to train its employees on how to handle the confidentiality of a student’s sexual orientation.”
Shortly thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Among its arguments was that they acted on a KISD policy to “disclose potentially illegal relationships involving students to students’ parents.” They also claimed they were entitled to immunity.
Taking the latter argument first, the court denied the defendants’ motion as it related to qualified immunity finding that “because the plaintiff’s version of the facts differ significantly from the defendants’ version, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the coaches acted in an objectively reasonable manner and violated S.W.’s clearly established right to privacy.”
Turning to whether there was a Constitutional right to privacy regarding the plaintiff’s sexual orientation, the court found that there was “clear precedent that a person has a right to the privacy of sexual information.” However, “the inquiry does not end there. The Court must next determine whether the Coaches had a legitimate interest in disclosing that information and whether that State interest outweighs S.W.’s privacy interest in her sexual orientation.” The court concluded that “the coaches were not motivated by the need to protect S.W. but rather were retaliating against S.W. for spreading a rumor about Coach Fletcher.”
The court also considered the defendants’ argument that they were just acting on an established policy as far as informing parents of a sexual relationship a student may be have with an adult. The flaw in their argument on this point is that they have “never” previously reported students 16 or younger having romantic heterosexual relationships with 18 year olds.
In addition the court agreed with the plaintiff on another key point that “KISD was deliberately indifferent toward the need for additional training regarding the confidentiality of students’ sexual orientation.”
Barbara Wyatt v. Kilgore Independent School District, Rhonda Fletcher, and Cassandra Newell, in their personal capacities; E.D. Tex.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:10-cv-674, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137836; 11/30/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Wayne Nicholas Krause, James C Harrington, Oficina Legal del Pueblo Unido – Austin, Texas Civil Rights Project, Austin, TX. (for defendants) Robert Scott Davis, LEAD ATTORNEY, David R Iglesias, Flowers Davis LLP, Tyler, TX.
