Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—E.D. Wash.: Women’s basketball coach’s gender discrimination lawsuit may continue based on direct evidence, (Mar 3, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

Several Title IX investigations suggested that the Athletic Director required a former employee to decorate for parties and events because they “needed a woman’s touch.”

A federal district court in Washington granted in part and denied in part a university’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former women’s basketball coach. The coach alleged that the university and its athletic director discriminated against her based on gender and age, retaliated against her for Title IX reporting, and breached her employment contract, among other claims. The court found sufficient evidence to allow the plaintiff’s gender discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims to proceed but dismissed her age discrimination, breach of contract, and wrongful withholding of wages claims. The plaintiff presented direct evidence of discriminatory intent or retaliatory motive, which created a question of fact as to the coach’s retaliation and gender discrimination claims, the federal district court held (Schuller v. Eastern Washington University, No. 2:23-cv-00059-RLP (E.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2025).

Women’s head coach. The plaintiff was hired as head coach of the Eastern Washington University (EWU) women’s basketball team in 2001 and signed a five-year contract extension in 2017, which included an annual salary of $110,000 with $2,500 yearly raises. Her contract allowed for termination without cause with six months’ severance pay. In contrast, EWU’s men’s basketball coach was paid $130,000 annually with $5,000 yearly raises.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against EWU and its Athletic Director, alleging that she was terminated at the age of 51 in retaliation for her Title IX reports and due to gender and age discrimination. She also claimed that EWU unlawfully paid her less than the men’s basketball head coach and breached her employment contract by terminating her without cause.

“[A] woman’s touch.” Several Title IX investigations suggested that the Athletic Director required a former employee to decorate for parties and events because they “needed a woman’s touch;” that she once noted she “hates girls and girl things-drama;” and that she stated in a meeting that a “woman” could not do a particular job and cover football at the same time.

Alleged gender bias. The plaintiff contended in her lawsuit that the Athletic Director demonstrated gender bias, referring to Title IX concerns as “gossip” and making comments about women in the workplace. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that in 2019, pursuant to Title IX requirements, she reported domestic violence allegations by a women’s basketball player against a football player, and that her report was met by dismissiveness and then anger by the Athletic Director. The plaintiff asserted that her termination was driven by her reports; EWU, however, argued that the plaintiff was terminated due to poor team performance and dissatisfaction among players. The university filed a motion for summary judgment.

Retaliation and gender discrimination claims. The court first addressed the coach’s claims for retaliation and gender discrimination claims under Title VII, Title IX, and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The court found that the coach had provided sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent and retaliatory motive, particularly regarding the Athletic Director’s comments and the characterization of the coach’s reports as “gossip.” This evidence precluded summary judgment on these claims, the court held, after noting that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis was inapplicable, as the plaintiff had presented direct evidence of discriminatory intent or retaliatory motive. Even if that framework applied, however, the evidence of discriminatory intent and retaliatory motive created a question of fact as to the coach’s retaliation and gender discrimination claims, the federal district court held.

Age discrimination claim. However, the court granted summary judgment on the coach’s WLAD age discrimination claim, finding indisputably that she was replaced by another coach over 40 and lacked evidence of age-based bias. Her wrongful termination claim was dismissed as to the portions that relied on age discrimination, but was allowed to proceed based on gender discrimination and retaliation.

Other claims. The plaintiff’s claim under the Washington Equal Pay Act (WEPA) also survived summary judgment. There was no question that the plaintiff was paid less than the men’s basketball coach, her counterpart. The court found there was a genuine factual dispute over whether she and the men’s basketball coach performed equal work, rejecting the university’s argument that the pay disparity was justified by additional media responsibilities assigned to the men’s coach.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of contract and wrongful withholding of wages claims, ruling that her contract explicitly allowed termination without cause in exchange for severance pay, which EWU had offered. The court also granted summary judgment on the coach’s procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, finding that she was an at-will employee without a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment. Additionally, the court dismissed her claims for conspiracy to violate civil rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as she failed to provide sufficient evidence to support them.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-00059-RLP.

Judge: Pennell, R.

Attorneys: Alexandria Tina Drake (Dunn & Black) for Wendy Schuller. Elizabeth Anne Olsen, Washington State Office of the Attorney General, for Eastern Washington University.

Companies: Eastern Washington University

Cases: SexDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation WageHour PayDiscrimination ContractClaims WashingtonNews