Blog
Female Coach Permitted To Pursue Discrimination Suit
Posted by: Melville Johnson, P.C.
June 20, 2008
Topic: Employment Discrimination
The Attorneys with Melville Johnson, P.C. can provide representation in cases alleging Title VII discrimination:
Ms. Debbie Peirick became the head women's tennis coach at Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) in 1990. It was undisputed that she excelled in most areas. Her players performed well academically, she never received an NCAA rule violations, she budgeted and fundraised effectively, and her team had just completed the best season in school history. Nevertheless, she was replaced by the 23-year old sister of the men's tennis team coach.
Ms. Peirick filed a lawsuit alleging Title VII sex discrimination and ADEA age discrimination against the University, the Athletics Department, and the Board of Trustees. IUPUI maintained that Ms. Peirick's poor professional conduct outweighed her positive contributions. The school's position was that it had received complaints from parents of players and from players about her abusive language. Further, the school asserted that Ms. Peirick was accused of being an unsafe driver, and of misrepresenting comments made by the athletic director.
Ms. Peirick argued that she was treated less favorably than two male athletic coaches because she was never informed of the University's concerns or given an opportunity to correct the behavior, whereas the male coaches were given that opportunity. IUPUI contended that she was not entitled to a warning because she was hourly staff and under University policy was not entitled to
progressive discipline. The male employees were appointed staff, a classification with the progressive discipline benefit.
The District Court granted summary judgment to IUPUI on both of Ms. Peirick's claims. Ms. Peirick appealed. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Ms. Peirick was referred to as an hourly employee in human resources documents. However, it also pointed out that all three coaches were judged by the same performance standards, and the Athletic Director provided progressive discipline to other hourly employees he considered "valuable." The Court of Appeals found that the Athletic Director took no heed of the difference in classifications in day-to-day operations, and that the two male coaches were similarly situated for purposes of Ms. Peirick's disparate treatment Title VII claim.
The Court of Appeals then explored whether Ms. Peirick and her colleagues engaged in similar misconduct but received dissimilar treatment. It found that the two male coaches had received complaints of verbal abuse and reprimands for public behavior unbecoming of a head coach. Both of those employees received progressive discipline and counseling. The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence that similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably than Ms. Peirick was sufficient to create a factual issue as to whether the stated reasons for terminating Ms. Peirick were a pretext for sex discrimination, precluding summary judgment on her Title VII claim.
The information in this summary was primarily derived from the Judicial View
Topics
Employment Discrimination
Erisa Retirement Benefits
Federal Civil and Criminal Appeals
Pension Rights
The International Employment Effects of SOX
Trust, Will, and Probate Litigation
Whistleblower
Recent Updates
July 02, 2008
Employee Able to Prove Age Discrimination, Despite Being Placed on a Performance Plan.
June 30, 2008
US Supreme Court Upholds Retaliation Claims Stemming from Racial or Age Discrimination Complaints.
June 25, 2008
Supreme Court to Decide Burden of Proof for Age Discrimination Claims.
June 23, 2008
Employee Who Lacks the Symptoms of Disabling Condition Is Not Recovered from Condition.
June 20, 2008
Female Coach Permitted To Pursue Discrimination Suit
