Cases & Developments

Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former head coach of the women’s soccer team at Emporia State University, brought claims of retaliation and violation of the First Amendment against the University and the University’s Athletic Director after his employment was terminated. While plaintiff was employed at the University, he helped draft and supported a letter delivered by the captains of the women’s soccer team to University administrators, consisting of complaints on the diminishing soccer field, dissatisfaction with the strength training sessions and film access, and expressing frustration that the “men’s athletic teams are treated more favorably by school administration” expressly referencing Title IX (hereinafter referred to as the Title IX complaint). Following the Title IX complaint, the Athletic Director informed the team that the University “planned an in-depth Title IX review of the athletic department that would be taking place in the next two months.” Following the Title IX complaint, Plaintiff was suspended following complaints from the assistant coach and graduate assistant coach of the team which alleged that the women’s soccer team “had been drinking on the bus following the conference championship game [and] . . . alleged that plaintiff was aware of the drinking and had participated in it.” Plaintiff subsequently filed an internal Title IX complaint with the University, where he alleged “that [the University] retaliated against him for complaining about sex discrimination on behalf of the women’s soccer team in violation of Title IX.” Regarding the retaliation claim, the Court denied the motion to dismiss based on statements in support of the Title IX complaint, recognizing that as protected activity, and granted the motion to dismiss regarding non-protected statements in support of other complaints. Regarding plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, he alleged that his support of the Title IX complaint was “a matter of public concern.” Furthermore, Plaintiff alleged that because “his official duties [do] not include supporting his team’s Title IX complaint, his speech is protected by the First Amendment.” The Court held in favor of defendants, agreeing that “plaintiff’s speech [] was made as part of his assigned responsibilities as head coach of the women’s soccer team.” The Court further reasoned that “[i]t is also significant that plaintiff’s speech, without exception, was directed at individuals within his chain of command . . . [which] further suggests that plaintiff was speaking pursuant to his official duties.” As such, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amendment claims.