Complaint Alleged Against Clark College

A Title IX complaint was filed against Clark College in Vancouver, WA, alleging that "campus softball facilities, equipment and supplies, and publicity are not being offered to women equal and comparable to the superior accommodations provided male baseball programs at its Clark College campus."  The complaint provides a long list of ways in which the softball team receives inferior treatment, including the dugout, equipment storage, backstops, toilets, spectator seating, scoreboards, drinking water, foul poles, field maintenance, drainage, fences, concessions, and publicity.  The Department of Education will now determine whether to investigate and how to resolve the matter. 

Clark College has had Title IX problems before.  In 2010, it paid half a million dollars to a former women's basketball coach after he prevailed in his case that he was fired in retaliation for advocating gender equity for his team.

Clark College Ex-Coach Awarded $545,000 in Retaliation Case

Another coach has won damages in a Title IX retaliation case. Trev Kiser, formerly the women's basketball coach at Clark College in Vancouver, Washington, was awarded a $545,000 verdict (plus attorneys fees) in a case that claimed he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for complaining about inequitable treatment of the women's basketball team.

In 2008, we blogged about the appellate court decision that reinstated his case after determining that Kiser had presented enough evidence of the athletic director's retaliatory motive to cast doubt on the college's argument that Kiser had been fired for mismanaging funds. (Apparently, there was little dispute that the AD actually threatened to fire him if he didn't stop making Title IX complaints.)

The award included $180,000 for back pay, $150,000 in lost future earnings, and $215,000 for emotional distress.

Retaliation Case Against Clark College May Proceed to Trial

Last week, the Washington state court of appeals reversed a lower court decision that had granted a summary judgment victory to Clark College (Vancouver, WA) in its litigation with former women's basketball coach, Trev Kiser. In 2002, Clark College terminated Kiser's contract. Kiser sued under Title IX and a state law, alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the disparities between men's and women's basketball programs that related to the quality of officiating, budget, travel arrangements, and the athletic director's hostility towards the women's team. The College argued that Kiser was fired for mismanaging team funds, including possibly pocketing some of the team's per diem money and indisputably receiving reimbursement for gas he didn't pay for. A trial judge granted the College's motion for summary judgment, and Kiser appealed.

The appellate court reversed the trial court and reinstated Kiser's case. At issue on appeal was the nature and sufficiency of evidence a retaliation plaintiff needs to proffer to avoid losing at summary judgment. For an employer to win an employment discrimination case on summary judgment, it must provide conclusive and uncontroverted evidence of its nondiscriminatory explanation for firing the plaintiff. The appellate court determined that Kiser provided enough evidence to cast doubt on the College's explanation that it fired him for mismanaging funds. In particular, Kiser alleged, and the College did not deny, that the athletic director threatened Kiser with losing his job if he didn't refrain from making Title IX allegations. "This threat presents direct evidence of a nexus between the retaliatory motive and the employment decision sufficient to suggest that the College's stated reasons for termination were pretextual," said the court. This is enough to prevent the College from winning on a summary judgment. A trial is necessary to resolve the disputed questions about Clark's allegedly retaliatory motive.

Decision: Kiser v. Clark College, 2008 WL 788685 (Wash. App. Div., March 25, 2008).