Despite my prediction, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss former coach retaliation Robin Potera-Haskins's case against Montana State. Apparently the appellate panel was not as concerned as I was about the trial judge's failure to give reasons for his determination that Potera-Haskins lacked credibility, or why it made sense to assume, in an employment case, that money damages were not at issue and therefore a jury trial was not warranted. But the judges certainly didn't take the time to say why, affirming the lower court's decision in a four-sentence, unpublished opinion.
Showing posts with label Montana State University. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Montana State University. Show all posts
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Judge Dismisses Retaliation Case Against Montana State
A federal district court judge in Montana has dismissed former women's basketball coach Robin Potera-Haskins's case against Montana State University-Bozeman, in which she alleged she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about gender inequities within the department. After a bench trial, the judge issued of findings of fact consistent with the university's allegations that Potera-Haskins was fired instead for being hard -- specifically, manipulative and verbally abusive -- on the players. According to the opinion (which I have read but cannot link to), the judge did not believe, as Potera-Haskins claimed, that she had been forced by the Athletic Director to grant a scholarship to his daughter, but rather, that she had done so in order to curry the AD's favor. He did not believe that MSU terminated Potera-Haskins for pressing Title IX issues.
The judge acknowledged that Potera-Haskins's testimony refuted his findings, but found generally as a matter of fact that she was not a credible witness (the judge made no mention of the credibility of other witnesses who testified on Potera-Haskins's behalf, or how/whether he weighed their testimony). Trial judges make credibility findings all the time, and they are usually granted deference by appellate courts, because they do not hear witness testimony first hand. But trial judges usually explain the basis for their credibility findings, and such an explanation was, rather astonishingly, missing from this opinion. Nowhere does the judge explain why the testimony of former players and athletic department officials was more credible than Potera-Haskins's own. As a result, the credibility finding, which was the linchpin to the judge's decision to accept MSU's version of the facts over Potera-Haskins's, seems to me rather vulnerable on appeal.
Moreover, the judge's decision to deny a jury trial in the first place is also highly questionable. Recall that that the decision to hold a bench trial instead flowed from the judge's determination that no economic damages were at stake in the case -- highly unusual for an employment discrimination case.
So even though the first round in this fight goes to Montana State, I think the plaintiff -- who I understand intends to appeal -- has a good chance of convincing the Ninth Circuit that the decision should be vacated and remanded with instructions for a jury trial.
The judge acknowledged that Potera-Haskins's testimony refuted his findings, but found generally as a matter of fact that she was not a credible witness (the judge made no mention of the credibility of other witnesses who testified on Potera-Haskins's behalf, or how/whether he weighed their testimony). Trial judges make credibility findings all the time, and they are usually granted deference by appellate courts, because they do not hear witness testimony first hand. But trial judges usually explain the basis for their credibility findings, and such an explanation was, rather astonishingly, missing from this opinion. Nowhere does the judge explain why the testimony of former players and athletic department officials was more credible than Potera-Haskins's own. As a result, the credibility finding, which was the linchpin to the judge's decision to accept MSU's version of the facts over Potera-Haskins's, seems to me rather vulnerable on appeal.
Moreover, the judge's decision to deny a jury trial in the first place is also highly questionable. Recall that that the decision to hold a bench trial instead flowed from the judge's determination that no economic damages were at stake in the case -- highly unusual for an employment discrimination case.
So even though the first round in this fight goes to Montana State, I think the plaintiff -- who I understand intends to appeal -- has a good chance of convincing the Ninth Circuit that the decision should be vacated and remanded with instructions for a jury trial.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Trial Held in Potera-Haskins Case
We've been following the Title IX retaliation case against Montana State University, filed by former basketball coach Robin Potera-Haskins. Potera-Haskins claimed that she was terminated from her position because she complained about the inequitable conditions for the women's athletics including coaching salaries and benefits, access to facilities, funding for tournaments, and the university's efforts to secure corporate sponsors and otherwise promote the team. She also alleges she received pressure from Athletic Director Peter Fields to offer a spot on the team to a friend of his who lacked the talent required of Division I program, and that her reluctance to do so also made her a target for retaliation.
Last week, the district court in Montana held a four-day bench trial, during which Coach Potera-Haskins testified in support of her allegations. The former men's basketball coach and an associate athletic department officials also testified "they knew of no instances when administrators meddled in the activities of men's coaches" to the degree Fields had micromanaged Potera-Haskins. Her former assistant coach testified that the coach had not mistreated players, as the athletic department claimed as the basis for her termination.
The judge -- who had prior to trial ruled that Potera-Haskins could not recover any monetary damages (because MSU already paid Potera-Haskins for terminating her employment, pursuant to the liquidated damages clause in her employment contract) and refused to give her a jury trial -- is not expected to make a ruling on MSU's liability and Potera-Haskins's eligibility for injunctive relief such as reinstatement for at least two months.
Last week, the district court in Montana held a four-day bench trial, during which Coach Potera-Haskins testified in support of her allegations. The former men's basketball coach and an associate athletic department officials also testified "they knew of no instances when administrators meddled in the activities of men's coaches" to the degree Fields had micromanaged Potera-Haskins. Her former assistant coach testified that the coach had not mistreated players, as the athletic department claimed as the basis for her termination.
The judge -- who had prior to trial ruled that Potera-Haskins could not recover any monetary damages (because MSU already paid Potera-Haskins for terminating her employment, pursuant to the liquidated damages clause in her employment contract) and refused to give her a jury trial -- is not expected to make a ruling on MSU's liability and Potera-Haskins's eligibility for injunctive relief such as reinstatement for at least two months.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Another Retaliation Case of Note
Last September, the federal district court in Montana denied Montana State University's motion for summary judgment on a Title IX retaliation suit filed by former head women's basketball coach, Robin Potera-Haskins. Her case is now heading for trial, but is unscheduled as of now.
Potera-Haskins headed the women's basketball program in Bozeman from 2001 until 2004, when the University president gave her the choice between resignation and termination. In her complaint, Potera-Haskins maintains that she was retaliated against in this manner for complaining about the inequitable conditions for the women's program relative to the men's in areas including coaching salaries and benefits, access to facilities, and the university's efforts to secure corporate sponsors and otherwise promote the team. She also alleges that she was singled out for this treatment because she resisted pressure from Athletic Director Peter Fields to offer a spot on the team to a friend of his who lacked the talent required of Division I program.
Potera-Haskins turned a losing MSU program around, posting three winning seasons and two conference championships during her tenure as head coach. Neverthess, MSU defends Potera-Haskins was terminated because of poor performance as a coach and "mistreatment and abuse suffered by the student athletes under her leadership." However, the judge acknowledged that this is a factual dispute properly decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.
Though this post is belated (the judge's decision's recent publication in the F. Supp. 2d finally brought it to my attention), I am eager to mention it because it helps illustrate the trend of Title IX retaliation cases we have seen in the wake of Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the 2005 Supreme Court decision affirming that Title IX also protects coaches (and others) who complain about inequitable treatment of women's sports. Potera-Haskins is another member of the "team" of female coaches and athletic department administrators who have brought retaliation cases against their colleges or universities -- a list that includes Eve Atkinson, Lindy Vivas, Karen Moe Humphreys, Diane Milutinovich, Stacy Johnson-Klein, Laurel Wartluft, Deena Deardurff Schmidt, and Jaye Flood.
Decision is: Potera-Haskins v. Gamble, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Mont. 2007).
Potera-Haskins headed the women's basketball program in Bozeman from 2001 until 2004, when the University president gave her the choice between resignation and termination. In her complaint, Potera-Haskins maintains that she was retaliated against in this manner for complaining about the inequitable conditions for the women's program relative to the men's in areas including coaching salaries and benefits, access to facilities, and the university's efforts to secure corporate sponsors and otherwise promote the team. She also alleges that she was singled out for this treatment because she resisted pressure from Athletic Director Peter Fields to offer a spot on the team to a friend of his who lacked the talent required of Division I program.
Potera-Haskins turned a losing MSU program around, posting three winning seasons and two conference championships during her tenure as head coach. Neverthess, MSU defends Potera-Haskins was terminated because of poor performance as a coach and "mistreatment and abuse suffered by the student athletes under her leadership." However, the judge acknowledged that this is a factual dispute properly decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.
Though this post is belated (the judge's decision's recent publication in the F. Supp. 2d finally brought it to my attention), I am eager to mention it because it helps illustrate the trend of Title IX retaliation cases we have seen in the wake of Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the 2005 Supreme Court decision affirming that Title IX also protects coaches (and others) who complain about inequitable treatment of women's sports. Potera-Haskins is another member of the "team" of female coaches and athletic department administrators who have brought retaliation cases against their colleges or universities -- a list that includes Eve Atkinson, Lindy Vivas, Karen Moe Humphreys, Diane Milutinovich, Stacy Johnson-Klein, Laurel Wartluft, Deena Deardurff Schmidt, and Jaye Flood.
Decision is: Potera-Haskins v. Gamble, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Mont. 2007).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)