Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Senior Writer & Professor, Sport Management, Drexel University, ejs95@drexel.edu
According to Southern Methodist University (SMU) head coach, Doug Wright, the philosophy of the women’s rowing program that he oversaw between 2000-2017 is anchored in three key components: wellness, education, and performance which created what he called a “blue print” for female rowers to “… achieve their life-long goals after leaving SMU”. In Coach Wright’s bio he stated, “Those three components don’t stand alone; they’re integrated into a concentric process, and they represent the means through which the entire team attains higher levels of learning and accomplishment.”
The veracity of that philosophy is called into question in McGowan et al. v. Southern Methodist University, a lawsuit filed in mid-January of 2018 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) by eight female rowers (one current and the remainder graduated) who claim in a civil action that they were subjected to unfair treatment and retaliation in violation of Title IX and substandard coaching and medical care that jeopardized their immediate and long-term health.
Allegations of Substandard Coaching & Sports Medicine Care
Background facts for the eight plaintiffs reveal similar, but not identical, fact patterns. Five had rowed in high school or in elite clubs prior to participating at SMU while three had been athletes but had never rowed before becoming members of the SMU program. Five were on partial athletic scholarship (50% to 75%) while three were considered walk-ons to the program. In all cases, the female athlete plaintiffs had been healthy in high school and only started to experience increasing pain in their hips and backs within the first year (for some within the first months) of being on the team.
According to the complaint, a culture allegedly created by the coaching staff and perpetuated by athletic trainers and sports medicine personnel working for SMU communicated expectations that athletes were to “deal with” their pain regardless of how they were feeling or the increasing difficulties athletes faced as a result of pain that disrupted their ability to focus on academics or to go about their daily lives.
For the athletes on scholarship, it is asserted that the threat of losing that financial support was used as leverage to render them compliant despite the pain they were in. Those on scholarship also allege that due to their injuries, they were deprived the opportunity to receive the value of either performance increases and/or full scholarships that they would have received if they had remained healthy and continued on the team until their senior years.
The requirement that the SMU athletic department would pay only for opinions rendered by their doctors resulted in delays in obtaining necessary tests to determine the correct prognosis of specific ailments. In one case, an athlete reported that she had suffered a stress fracture in her back but was not informed of her condition under after she had competed in a conference championship. Following that, she alleged that she was not given a prescription for physical therapy for another month.
Beyond the alleged threats made to coerce the female rowers to persist in their sports despite the significant injuries they were suffering, which by itself might constitute retaliation under Title IX, they further allege that the promise of remaining members of the SMU rowing “family” was taken away from them. For some of the plaintiffs, they were unceremoniously told that they would need to vacate their locker room, walking in to find their personal items already removed from the lockers and placed in bins with the belongings of others. They also perceived that they were symbolically being shunned by the “family” when they were asked to return their gear, a practice that was reserved, as far as they understood, as a punishment for rowers who left the team of their own volition.
Plaintiffs shed light on the dynamic of management of medical coverage that occurs within college and university athletic departments. Given the SMU policy regarding second opinions, several athletes went outside of the designated sports medicine providers and sought assistance elsewhere. When they did that, however, either the athlete or the family bore the cost of those second opinions, including tests. If those specialists and doctors were not in the immediate proximity, the family would have had to cover the expenses associated with transportation to and from the site of medical consultation.
One of the issues that all of the female athlete plaintiffs face after their college playing careers is the prospect of ongoing pain and the anticipation of additional surgeries. Each reported that they experience daily pain. Some allege that they have been advised by their doctors that they can expert to need hip replacements in 10-20 years. And the responsibility for the expense of that long-term care is, in their current situation, either to be paid for by them, if they have the financial wherewithal to be in a position to get the treatments or procedures they need. Given the chronic pain it appears that some of the plaintiffs are in, this could potentially be a considerable burden.
The Proximate Cause of the Plaintiffs’ Distress
As outlined in the complaint, the plaintiffs ascribe the occurrence of these types of painful hip, back, and other injuries to substandard coaching techniques, insufficient strength and conditioning supervision, and athletic training/sports medicine support. Specifically, they note that the coaching staff employed a unique type of training that departed from traditional forms in the sport of rowing (sculling and sweeping). That coupled with the failure of SMU to provide adequate staffing to supervise the weight training regimens of the team, depriving them of appropriate feedback regarding proper lifting technique, and the existing culture that minimized pain and misread the symptomology presented by the female plaintiffs resulted in negligence on the part of those who were to protect and care for them. As characterized in the complaint, the female rowers were “…subjected to substandard, second class athletic training and medical attention…” that would not have been tolerated had they been members of the football team.
SMU and Its History of Title IX Compliance
According to the complaint, SMU’s approach to Title IX compliance has resulted in manipulating roster sizes to offer the appearance of providing participation opportunities for female athletes in keeping with Title IX’s requirements but creating larger rosters that are supported with lean budgets. As described in the complaint, “SMU fails to recognize that higher participation numbers alone do not equal a winning score when it comes to Title IX” (McGowan et al. v. Southern Methodist University, 2018, p. 6). The plaintiffs go on to conclude that “While SMU struggled to keep the participation numbers up and the rowing roster filled to support SMU’s claim of gender equity, it provided the rowing team with inferior resources, equipment, access to coaching and training personnel, and medical care” (McGowan et al. v. Southern Methodist University, 2018, p. 6).
To support the position that SMU has, and continues to discriminate against female athletes, the plaintiffs cite information from the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act Report filed by SMU officials for the academic year 2015-2016. They note, for example, that women’s athletic programs at SMU received 18% of the available recruiting dollars that year ($253,697 of the $1,382,787 allocated for recruiting). Expenses paid per SMU football player to compete in 2015-2016 was $15,253 while the per participant expense for female rowers was $4,264. Alleging that female athletes had access to fewer and less qualified coaches, the plaintiffs noted that the average annual institutional salary for head coaches of men’s teams was $906,588 in contrast to $114,778 for head coaches of women’s teams.
Relief Sought
The female plaintiffs in this case seek relief in the following forms. They are requesting that the court enter an order that SMU has had a past and continuing practice of sex discrimination that deprives female athletes of equal treatment and places them in harms way in violation of Title IX. They also seek an injunction to restrain SMU from continuing to discriminate against female athletes. They further seek”… damages; punitive damages; costs; interest; statutory/civil penalties according to the law; attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation…and other relief…appropriate and just” (McGowan et al. v. Southern Methodist University, 2018, p. 44).
SMU’s Response
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, SMU responded with this statement:
SMU’s foremost concern is always for students’ health and well-being. For student-athletes, in particular, our goal in our training programs is to emphasize and support health, fitness and injury prevention. While the University does not comment on pending litigation, SMU is committed to complying with Title IX in its athletic programs and throughout the campus (as quoted in Montes, 2018).
References
McGowan et al. v. Southern Methodist University (2018). Case No: 3:18-cv-00141-N. Retrieved from https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db1-mcgowan-et-al-v-southern-methodist-university-659818
Montes, B. (2018, January 19). Former student rowers file Title IX, negligence lawsuit against SMU. Parkcitiespeople.com. Retrieved from http://www.parkcitiespeople.com/schools/former-student-rowers-file-title-ix-negligence-lawsuit-against-smu/
Staff. (2018). Head coach bio: Doug Wright. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University. Retrieved from http://smumustangs.com/coaches.aspx?rc=932
