Winthrop University has responded to a lawsuit brought by Melissa Heinz, the former women’s soccer coach, who filed sexual harassment and discrimination claims against the school and members of its athletic department.
In its answer to Heinz’ complaint, Winthrop University attorneys filed 11 separate defenses to Heinz’ claims of sexual harassment and discrimination both by the university and its individual employees.
While some defenses were a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, others are less common, including asserting that some of Heinz’ claims were barred under the Eleventh Amendment. Additionally, the University stated that the “differential in pay between what Winthrop University paid Plaintiff and what Winthrop University paid any alleged similarly situated male coach was based on reasonable factors other than sex,” which would be a valid defense to a claim of discrimination.
The Eleventh Amendment reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” In layman’s terms, Winthrop University argued that it is shielded from suit by sovereign immunity.
Turning to the University’s other defenses, it argued that Heinz waived her right to procedural due process when she resigned from her employment and accepted other employment, and:
“Any liberty interest claim that Plaintiff may have had in connection with her separation from employment with Winthrop University is foreclosed by her failure to request a post-termination name-clearing hearing.”
Additionally, Winthrop states that it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly
correct alleged harassment in the workplace based on sex, and [Heinz] unreasonably failed to take advantage of these preventive or corrective measures or to avoid harm otherwise.”
Concerning Heinz’ disparate pay from other coaches (namely Winthrop men’s soccer coach Posipanko), the University explained that “coaching salaries are established based upon experience, success, achievement and market. The salary disparity ($59,137 -$47,644) between Coach Posipanko and Plaintiff was in direct relation to Coach Posipanko’s 21 years as head coach at Winthrop compared to Plaintiff’s 7 years, and his success in leading the men’s soccer team during his tenure as head coach, including winning the Big South Conference Championship five times and participating in the NCAA Championships four times. Plaintiff’s teams won one Big South Conference championship and never participated in the NCAA championships. Further, Coach Posipanko’s 2009 camp-related income was $15,000 whereas Plaintiff’s camp income was $7,000.” Winthrop further explains, “[Heinz] was paid more than some male head coaches (e.g.,men’s golf) and less than some male head coaches (e.g., men’s soccer) and that she was paid more than some female head coaches (e.g., women’s golf) and less than some female head coaches (e.g.,volleyball).”
Regarding Heinz’ claims that the women’s soccer team was treated unfairly and discriminated against in favor of the men’s team, the University noted that “the women’s soccer program has received more scholarship funding than the men’s program for the last four years. In 2009-10, the women’s soccer program received 11.62 scholarships ($338,290.00) while the men’s soccer program received 9.67 scholarships ($289,244.00).”
In response to Heinz’ claim that she was precluded from obtaining another coaching job in NCAA Division I athletics, the University pointed out that “Defendant Hickman received no inquiries about Plaintiff from any Division I school and he helped her get her current job at Valdosta State University.”
Melissa Heinz v. Winthrop University, Anthony DiGiorgio, Thomas Hickman, Richard Posipanko. U.S. Dist. S.C. (Rock Hill), C.A. No. 0:10-cv-02870-CMC.
