Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—W.D. Ky.: College tennis coach fired over performance, disciplinary record, not because of bias, (Jan 6, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

There was no evidence suggesting her purported comparators were similarly investigated for a Title IX violation, had also received numerous student-athlete complaints, or had as much negative performance feedback.

A federal district court granted Kentucky Wesleyan College’s motion for summary judgment on a former employee’s federal and state-law claims alleging that she was fired as the head coach of the men’s and women’s tennis teams because of her age (64) and gender, and not because of her undisputed compliance violations, negative student feedback, and overall poor performance. Though she claimed male and/or younger coaches were treated more favorably, none of the purported comparators had sufficiently similar performance or disciplinary records. Moreover, because her replacement was only eight years younger and there was no direct evidence of age animus, she also could not make out a prima facie case of age discrimination (Hunter v. Kentucky Wesleyan College, No. 4:23-cv-084-RGJ (W.D. Ky. Dec. 26, 2024)).

Student athlete complaints. The college originally hired the employee as its part-time women’s tennis coach. In 2015 she was promoted to full-time head coach for the women’s tennis team, and in 2018 she also became head coach for the men’s tennis team. After the 2018-2019 season, athletic leaders requested feedback from the tennis athletes regarding her performances. Their responses generally stated that practices were disorganized and that she was unprofessional, unprepared, lacked tennis knowledge, and could not improve the skill level of the team. Her 2018-2019 performance review indicated these same concerns, marking her as “unsatisfactory” or “needs improvement” in several areas.

NCAA violation. On December 16, 2019, the college issued a letter of admonishment to the employee regarding an NCAA compliance violation, and on February 10, 2020, the NCAA issued a $2,250 fine to the college for that violation. The NCAA case summary stated that the violation occurred when she allowed ineligible players play in a tennis match. She did not dispute that the college’s athletics VP had informed her that the four players were ineligible and offered contradictory testimony as to whether she nevertheless allowed the ineligible tennis players to play.

Title IX complaint. A Title IX complaint was filed against the employee on August 25, 2020, alleging that she used the wrong pronouns when referring to a transgender student. As part of the Title IX investigation, the athletics VP interviewed players on both tennis teams and found that the students were still unhappy with her as head coach. Many noted that the program had not improved since the 2018-2019 season.

Paid leave and PIP. The following day, she was placed on paid administrative leave due to “cumulative concerns,” which included the Title IX complaint as well as her poor performance review, her NCAA violation, and student complaints. Though she returned after a few weeks, on October 2, 2020, she was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) which ran through April 30, 2021.

Terminated. On April 19, 2022, the college sent out anther season-ending survey to tennis players, and their responses reiterated many of the same concerns as the previous survey. The college terminated the employee seven days later. At the end of her tenure, her final overall record was 24-119, her overall win percentage was.202, the women’s seven-season record was 20-80, and the men’s four-season record was 4-39. She sued, alleging claims of sex and age discrimination under Title VII, the ADEA and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.

Fails to dispute work record. The court rejected the employee’s attempt to dispute her work record, finding that no triable issues existed as to her NCAA compliance violation, her placement on paid administrative leave due to a Title IX investigation, negative student feedback, poor performance evaluations, and a poor win record. Though she attempted to dispute the veracity of the student feedback, there was no evidence to support her speculative assertion that it was “copy and pasted.” Her attempt to contest the facts that led to the NCAA compliance violation also failed since she made contradictory statements in her deposition as to whether she had let the ineligible players play.

No evidence of pretext. The college did not dispute that the employee established a prima facie case of sex discrimination but argued that she could not show its proffered performance and disciplinary reasons for her termination were pretextual. The court agreed, rejecting her contention that male coaches were treated more favorably than her. Significantly, none of the eight purported male comparators were similarly situated “in all relevant aspects” since none of their work records were similar to hers.

Colleagues not similarly situated. While each of the male coaches had a portion of her record, none of their records included “significant overlap.” There was no evidence suggesting that any of them were investigated for a Title IX violation, had received numerous student complaints, or had as many “unsatisfactory” and “needs improvements” ratings in their respective performance reviews. Indeed, she did not provide any evidence that any of the other coaches had more than three of the same performance concerns as her.

No inference of age bias. Moreover, the eight-year difference between the employee and her replacement—without more—was insufficient to establish a prima facie claim of age bias. The court noted that the Sixth Circuit “established a bright-line rule that in the absence of direct evidence that the employer considered age to be significant, an age difference of six years or less between an employee and a replacement is not significant.” Moreover, other courts have held that an eight-year age difference cannot satisfy the fourth prong of the prima facie case if there is no direct evidence of age animus. But even if she could pass the prima facie hurdle, her age bias claim failed at the pretext stage for the same reason as her sex discrimination claim—the same purported comparators were not similarly situated to her.

The case is No. 4:23-cv-084-RGJ.

Judge: Jennings, R.

Attorneys: Andrew Dutkanych, III (Biesecker Dutkanych & Macer) for Diana Hunter. Lindsay T. R. Porter (English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley) for Kentucky Wesleyan College.

Companies: Kentucky Wesleyan College

Cases: AgeDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims KentuckyNews