Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—S.D. Ill.: Female coach passed over in favor of male with no softball coaching experience takes Title VII claim to trial, (Apr 3, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The decisionmaker relied on his “gut feeling” the female coach lacked the right soft skills for the position.

Southern Illinois University must defend at trial the Title VII sex discrimination claim of a female applicant for a head softball coach position who, despite her 14 years of coaching experience including seven as a head coach, was passed over in favor of a male baseball assistant coach who did not apply for the position and did not have any experience coaching softball. Denying the university’s motion for summary judgment, a federal court in Illinois found fact questions as to whether the male coach was chosen before the female candidate’s interview. Further, the court found the decisionmaker’s reliance on his “gut feelings” and her lack of soft skills was subjective and clearly a question for the jury to decide (Guthrie v. Board of Trustees for Southern Illinois University, No. 3:23-cv-02989-GCS (S.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026)).

When the university posted an opening for the head softball coach position, the plaintiff, who had played Division I and professional softball and had coached collegiate softball for more than 14 years, including seven as a head coach, submitted her application. She was one of 12 candidates selected by the screening committee for an initial interview and then one of two selected for a campus interview. At the time, she was the head softball coach at a Division II softball program and the other candidate, also a woman, was an assistant coach at a Division I softball program.

Gut feeling. After meeting with both candidates, the athletic director (AD) concluded that the second candidate did not have enough experience to serve as head coach. He also decided, based on a “gut feeling,” that the plaintiff, while qualified, was not the right fit for the program because she lacked the right soft skills for the team’s culture and the students’ needs. Other committee members expressed concern that she was too similar to the previous coach although most felt she was qualified for the position.

While the search was ongoing, the AD discussed the position with the university’s assistant baseball coach. The assistant coach did not apply for the position or undergo a similar interview process. Nor did he have any softball coaching or playing experience.

Failed search. The AD ultimately decided to “fail” the search and on July 1, 2021, the plaintiff was notified that none of the candidates had been hired. At 6:45 p.m. that same day, the university announced that the AD, “after an unsuccessful external search,” appointed the male assistant coach as the softball interim head coach. The assistant coach resigned in 2022, and the university ultimately offered the job to a female candidate. When she declined, it hired a male applicant.

Culture change. Moving for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Title VII sex discrimination claim, the university argued that the male assistant coach was better qualified for the position based on the priority of a “culture change.” The court, however, pointed out that the job posting required, among other things, collegiate softball coaching experience, which the plaintiff possessed. She also had a master’s degree in sports management. On the other hand, the assistant coach did not have a master’s degree and had no softball coaching or playing experience. Nor did he apply for the position or go through the same interview process.

Proffered reason. As for its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for selecting the assistant coach, the AD stated that he rejected the plaintiff based on a “gut feeling” because he felt she lacked the “soft skills” necessary to repair team culture and the assistant coach was selected as an interim stabilizer.

Pretext. In an attempt to show this proffered reason was pretextual, the plaintiff claimed the assistant coach accepted the job before she was even interviewed. According to the university, however, the AD and assistant coach only discussed the position as an “opportunity” prior to the interviews and the offer was made after the interviews and committee feedback. Because both interpretations were plausible, the court found a fact dispute existed as to the timing of the offer to the assistant coach.

Pointing next to the disparity in the coaches’ qualifications, the court noted that a reasonable jury could find the plaintiff was vastly more qualified in every aspect while the assistant coach lacked the minimum posted qualifications. Moreover, the university’s explanation that softball experience was irrelevant was contradicted by the job posting and by the university’s historical hiring practices. Further, the fact that the assistant coach never applied for the position and was not interviewed in the same manner as the others showed the university deviated from its normal hiring practices.

Finally, the court noted that not only was the AD’s reliance on “gut feelings” and soft skills subjective and clearly a question for the jury to decide, but also the plaintiff testified that he arrived late for her interview, asked a couple of generic questions and then talked the rest of the time, made slights at the former female coach, was complimentary of male coaches, and displayed disinterest during the interview. Based on all this, the court denied the university’s motion for summary judgement.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-02989-GCS.

Judge: Sison, G.

Attorneys: Jill Zwagerman (Newkirk Zwagerman) and Jonathan C. Berns (Dobson, Berns & Rich) for Shannon Guthrie. Vincent D. Reese (Mickes O'Toole) for Board of Trustees for Southern Illinois University.

Companies: Board of Trustees for Southern Illinois University

Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge IllinoisNews