School District Prevails in Title VII Retaliation case Filed by Basketball Coach

A high school girls varsity basketball coach sued a school district for gender discrimination after the school failed to hire her as the boys varsity basketball coach. The court found in favor of the coach and ordered the district to hire her as varsity coach for both the boys and girls basketball teams.

Around the same time that the coach took responsibility for both  the girls' and boys' teams, parents within the state filed a lawsuit against the state’s high school athletic association arguing that the state violated Title IX by not holding the girls’ basketball season at the same time as the boys' season. After the coach had held the dual role of boys' and girls' basketball coach for roughly five years, the school district removed her from her role as coach of the girls' team but allowed her to remain as coach of the boys' team. According to the school, the decision to relieve her from her girls' team coaching duties was done proactively in anticipation of the court’s ruling in the Title IX suit, hoping to ease the transition in the event the court ordered the realignment of the girls' basketball season. 

Several months after she was removed as the girls' coach, the court issued a final decision ordering the state to hold both girls' and boys' basketball seasons at the same time. Despite this ruling, the coach sued the school, arguing that it removed her as coach of the girls' basketball team in retaliation for her decision to file initial gender discrimination lawsuit against the school. However, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the coach, there was at least a two-year time lapse between "protected conduct" of the final order in the gender discrimination lawsuit and the alleged retaliatory act of terminating her as the girls' coach. The court determined that the two-year gap in time between the "protected conduct" and the retaliatory act was fatal to the coach’s attempt to demonstrate the necessary connection between the "protected conduct" and the alleged retaliation. As such, the coach could not meet her burden. 

While this case turned out favorably for the school district, employers must be careful to act deliberately and cautiously when taking actions against employees who have filed lawsuits, or even complained, about alleged discriminatory practices of an employer. For more information read Fuhr v. Hazel Park School District, No 11-2288, (6th Cir, Mar. 19, 2013).