Last year when a jury ruled in favor of Shannon Miller in her lawsuit against University of Minnesota-Duluth, it awarded her nearly $3.75 million in compensation for past damages after it concluded that the university terminated her with unlawful retaliatory and discriminatory motives in violation of Title IX and Title VII.
Left unresolved at the time was how the university should remedy her present and future injury of present and future remedy, which Miller argued should be addressed by an order requiring the university to reinstate her to her former position. In the alternative, she argued for a a front pay award of $3 million. A federal court judge ruled on her motion this week. He determined that reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy due to the position having already been filled. The current coach is now in her fourth season and most of the current players have been recruited by her. Accordingly, it would be unduly disruptive to reinstate Miller to her former position. Instead, the court agreed to a monetary alternative in the form of front pay.
Front pay is an award of damages that in unlawful termination cases that requires the factfinder to determine what the plaintiff would earn from the date of the verdict going forward if they had not been fired (back pay, in contrast, compensates the plaintiff through the date of the verdict). It then takes into account what the plaintiff is earning in whatever new job they may have, and if that is less, awards the plaintiff the difference. The court did not agree with Miller's speculation that she would have worked at UMD for 12-15 more years from the date of verdict; pointing out that 30-year tenure for any Division I head coach is rare. But nor did the court accept UMD's position that Miller was fully compensated by the back pay award Miller had already been awarded. Instead, the judge found sufficient evidence that Miller would have worked at UMD for another five years from when she was terminated. Her front pay award was therefore calculated at her UMD salary from the date of the verdict through June 2020. Then it was offset by the $30,000 Miller earns annually as the head coach of the Calgary Inferno professional women's hockey team. The total, $461,278, brings UMD's total liability to around $4.2 million.
One thing that I found noteworthy about this opinion is the particular role that Title IX played, relative to Title VII, in driving the damages award in this case. The judge's opinion on front pay noted that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages or reinstatement on her Title VII claim, even though the jury found that sex discrimination had been a motivating factor in her termination, because the jury had found evidence that UMD would have fired Miller anyway. Under Title VII, a so-called "mixed motive" finding like this limits the plaintiff to only declaratory relief and attorneys' fees. Title IX, however, is not governed by the mixed-motive provision of Title VII, so damages are allowed even when university defendants demonstrate that a non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason would have led them to make the same adverse employment action.
Decision: Miller v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 2019 WL 586674 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2019).
Showing posts with label University of Minnesota-Duluth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label University of Minnesota-Duluth. Show all posts
Friday, February 15, 2019
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Jury Awards Coach Shannon Miller $3.74 Million
A federal court jury in Minnesota determined today that the University of Minnesota-Duluth was motivated by sex discrimination and retaliation when it decided not to renew the contract of former women's hockey coach Shannon Miller. As a result, the university violated Title IX and is liable for $3.74 million in damages. This figure includes $744,000 to cover Miller's past lost wages and $3 million to compensate for her emotional distress.
Though the university argued that Miller was not renewed for performance reasons, Miller's presented evidence that convinced the jury that she was actually let go because she was a strong advocate for her team and that that athletic department employed double standards when making employment decisions about male and female coaches.
Some of our past blog posts about this case are here, here, and here.
Though the university argued that Miller was not renewed for performance reasons, Miller's presented evidence that convinced the jury that she was actually let go because she was a strong advocate for her team and that that athletic department employed double standards when making employment decisions about male and female coaches.
Some of our past blog posts about this case are here, here, and here.
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
University of Minnesota-Duluth to Face Trial on Coach's Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
Last week the federal district court in Minnesota ruled on the University of Minnesota's motion for summary judgment in a multi-count lawsuit filed against it by three female former coaches at the Duluth campus, who had alleged a variety of discrimination claims arising from their employment. Though the court granted summary judgment on several of the plaintiffs' claims, it refused to dismiss Coach Shannon Miller's claim that sex discrimination motivated the university's decision not to renew her contract, and her claim that the university retaliated against her for raising Title IX concerns. Those issues are now heading for trial scheduled in March.
Sex discrimination. UMD defended its decision not to renew Miller's contract on two grounds: the poor performance of the women's hockey team, which Miller coached, and the lack of "return on investment" for continuing to pay Miller's relatively high salary. Yet the court acknowledged, there is sufficient evidence that jury could conclude that these explanations were in fact pretext for sex discrimination. Specifically, the court identified: (1) evidence that the men's hockey coach was retained comparable or worse performance of his team; (2) evidence that the department used different criteria to evaluate Miller's renewal than the renewal of the men's team's coach; (3) the fact that the department gave inconsistent explanations for Miller's nonrenewal (saying first it was because of finances, then later arguing it was based on performance); evidence that the university's financial situation "was not as dire as it claimed"; and (5) the fact that the department did not pursue alternatives to nonrenewal that would have been consistent its ostensible concern about finances, such as asking Miller to take a pay cut or seeking donors to fund her salary.
Retaliation. The court also concluded there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could conclude that the university had retaliatory motives, in addition or instead of a desire to get rid of Miller because of her sex. Miller engaged in protected conduct by complaining to athletic department administrators about Title IX violations that affected her team. These complaints "continued until shortly before" the athletic director decided not to renew her contract. This timing, along with other evidence, could convince the jury that UMD terminated Miller to punish her for advocating for Title IX.
Hostile Environment Based on Sexual Orientation. The court dismissed the claims of all three plaintiffs that the athletic department cultivated and tolerated a hostile environment on the grounds that they are lesbians. After acknowledging that these claims were "strong" the court nevertheless dismissed them on the grounds that federal law does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (While Minnesota law does prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over these state law claims.) This seems like an appealable issue to me. The nearby Seventh Circuit has reasoned that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, and other circuit courts may be on the verge. An appeal here could give the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals an opportunity to get on board with this emerging and civil-rights expanding interpretation of sex discrimination under Title VII and Title IX.
Equal Pay. The court also dismissed Coach Miller's Equal Pay Act claim. Even though she was paid less than her men's team counterpart, a male, the court nevertheless determined that his job was not comparable to hers because the men's hockey team draws a bigger audience, more revenue, and as a result puts more pressure on him to win. This outcome is disappointing but not surprising as other female coaches' equal pay act claims have failed due to judges' unwillingness to see equivalence between coaching women and coaching men. Unfortunately, the rationale permits sex discrimination in the marketplace to justify lower salaries for female coaches who work just as hard and have no control over the public's bias.
Decision is: Miller v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 2018 WL 659851 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2018).
Sex discrimination. UMD defended its decision not to renew Miller's contract on two grounds: the poor performance of the women's hockey team, which Miller coached, and the lack of "return on investment" for continuing to pay Miller's relatively high salary. Yet the court acknowledged, there is sufficient evidence that jury could conclude that these explanations were in fact pretext for sex discrimination. Specifically, the court identified: (1) evidence that the men's hockey coach was retained comparable or worse performance of his team; (2) evidence that the department used different criteria to evaluate Miller's renewal than the renewal of the men's team's coach; (3) the fact that the department gave inconsistent explanations for Miller's nonrenewal (saying first it was because of finances, then later arguing it was based on performance); evidence that the university's financial situation "was not as dire as it claimed"; and (5) the fact that the department did not pursue alternatives to nonrenewal that would have been consistent its ostensible concern about finances, such as asking Miller to take a pay cut or seeking donors to fund her salary.
Retaliation. The court also concluded there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could conclude that the university had retaliatory motives, in addition or instead of a desire to get rid of Miller because of her sex. Miller engaged in protected conduct by complaining to athletic department administrators about Title IX violations that affected her team. These complaints "continued until shortly before" the athletic director decided not to renew her contract. This timing, along with other evidence, could convince the jury that UMD terminated Miller to punish her for advocating for Title IX.
Hostile Environment Based on Sexual Orientation. The court dismissed the claims of all three plaintiffs that the athletic department cultivated and tolerated a hostile environment on the grounds that they are lesbians. After acknowledging that these claims were "strong" the court nevertheless dismissed them on the grounds that federal law does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (While Minnesota law does prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over these state law claims.) This seems like an appealable issue to me. The nearby Seventh Circuit has reasoned that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, and other circuit courts may be on the verge. An appeal here could give the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals an opportunity to get on board with this emerging and civil-rights expanding interpretation of sex discrimination under Title VII and Title IX.
Equal Pay. The court also dismissed Coach Miller's Equal Pay Act claim. Even though she was paid less than her men's team counterpart, a male, the court nevertheless determined that his job was not comparable to hers because the men's hockey team draws a bigger audience, more revenue, and as a result puts more pressure on him to win. This outcome is disappointing but not surprising as other female coaches' equal pay act claims have failed due to judges' unwillingness to see equivalence between coaching women and coaching men. Unfortunately, the rationale permits sex discrimination in the marketplace to justify lower salaries for female coaches who work just as hard and have no control over the public's bias.
Decision is: Miller v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 2018 WL 659851 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2018).
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Duluth Coaches and Students File Title IX Complaint
A group of four former student athletes, one current student athlete, and three former coaches have filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights challenging widespread sex discrimination within the athletic department at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. The former coaches -- Shannon Miller, Jen Banford, and Annette Wiles -- are also plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the university challenging sex- and sexual orientation- discrimination that resulted in the termination or forced resignation of their jobs. But the OCR complaint alleges even more widespread sex discrimination that affects students and coaches alike.
Allegations in the complaint include the following:
Allegations in the complaint include the following:
- women's ice hockey team has a smaller operating budget (by over $270K) than its male counterpart
- women's softball team was forced to have tryouts in order to pad the number of female athletes reported for gender equity purposes, then the department made the coach cut those extra players for budgetary reasons
- some female athletes were fraudulently reported as participants in multiple sports
- men's basketball team is allowed to carry redshirt players, while the women's team is not
- the department has terminated female coaches, depriving female athletes the opportunity to receive coaching of high quality
- the department provides men's teams coach with resources like vehicles, a restaurant expense account, and support staff, that are not provided to the women's coaches on equal terms.
- the men's basketball team has a locker room five times larger and of superior quality than the locker room for women's team
- the men's hockey team is provided with resources like snacks, meals, travel funds to tournaments that were not provided in equal measure to the women's team.
- the women's basketball team had fewer games and travel opportunities than the men's team; the women's team had to fundraise for travel and the men were not
- men's teams had bigger budgets for recruiting, more equipment and uniforms, and medical equipment denied to women's teams
- female athletes have fewer opportunities for scholarships, such as funding to enroll in special May term, J-term, and summer semesters that male athletes receive
- the department does less promotion for female teams than its male counterparts, among other examples, it tweeted about men's hockey 309 times compared to 69 tweets about women's hockey
Monday, September 28, 2015
Lawsuit against Minnesota-Duluth
In a move that everyone knew was coming, three former coaches at the University of Minnesota-Duluth have filed a lawsuit against the university alleging discrimination on seven different counts including gender and sexual orientation. Shannon Miller (hockey), Jen Banford (softball, hockey relations), and Annette Wiles (basketball) have worked together on the lawsuit, which was precipitated by events that began almost a year ago when Miller's contract was not renewed because the university claimed it could no longer afford her. She was, at the time, the highest paid women's hockey coach, but notably paid less the UMD's men's coach.
All three women are gay and the lawsuit alleges that their openness about their sexuality was a key factor in the discrimination they faced. We have not heard about specific incidents of discrimination, rather the coverage has focused on contracts and the timeline of events that lead to the dismissal and/or resignation of each woman. But I suspect more stories that corroborate the women's claims will be made public as the legal challenges proceed. Miller, for example, recounted to the press today that she came to work one day and found that the name tag on her office door had been removed and replaced with the word dyke. She took it down and reported it. The name tag was never replaced and the incident never investigated. She also received anonymous hate mail on department letterhead.
The UMD chancellor has said that--although he has not yet looked over the lawsuit--he is sure that the claims of discrimination against the university will be proven false but that "we can always get better" on diversity issues. Miller's story certainly exemplifies the need to do better and also suggests that the chancellor's comments about no discrimination taking place may be a little overconfident at this point.
The lawsuit is against UMD but it cites athletic director Josh Berlo extensively. Berlo remains the athletic director and the university continues to support him. Miller cites his arrival at UMD in 2013 as a turning point in the culture of the department:
"It's language; it's how they treat you in meetings; it's how they don't meet with you; how they react when you take something forward to them, a complaint. So there was a shift, and it was a really strong shift, and it's the most abrupt and rude treatment I've ever received in my entire life as a professional."
I find this indictment of Berlo interesting in light of a recent article in the Harvard Business Review titled "Why do so many incompetent men become leaders?" It is certainly relevant to the issue of female coaches and female athletic department administrators, as noted by friend-of-the-blog and activist Pat Griffin.
According to one of the coaches' lawyers--Dan Siegel, who was counsel on the Fresno State cases in which dismissed female coaches won millions in their discrimination lawsuits--the university has not engaged in any conversation about settlement. Right now this appears to be a "digging their heels in" case. Though this case, according to Siegel, is less complicated than the Fresno cases in terms of evidence proving discrimination. It is also notable that both schools are state universities. This means that the burden of either a settlement or award in favor of the plaintiffs will be born by the taxpayers--in one way or another.
I had truly thought that Fresno State would serve as cautionary tale for other institutions. UMD though appears to be on the path to becoming the new (old) Fresno State.
All three women are gay and the lawsuit alleges that their openness about their sexuality was a key factor in the discrimination they faced. We have not heard about specific incidents of discrimination, rather the coverage has focused on contracts and the timeline of events that lead to the dismissal and/or resignation of each woman. But I suspect more stories that corroborate the women's claims will be made public as the legal challenges proceed. Miller, for example, recounted to the press today that she came to work one day and found that the name tag on her office door had been removed and replaced with the word dyke. She took it down and reported it. The name tag was never replaced and the incident never investigated. She also received anonymous hate mail on department letterhead.
The UMD chancellor has said that--although he has not yet looked over the lawsuit--he is sure that the claims of discrimination against the university will be proven false but that "we can always get better" on diversity issues. Miller's story certainly exemplifies the need to do better and also suggests that the chancellor's comments about no discrimination taking place may be a little overconfident at this point.
The lawsuit is against UMD but it cites athletic director Josh Berlo extensively. Berlo remains the athletic director and the university continues to support him. Miller cites his arrival at UMD in 2013 as a turning point in the culture of the department:
"It's language; it's how they treat you in meetings; it's how they don't meet with you; how they react when you take something forward to them, a complaint. So there was a shift, and it was a really strong shift, and it's the most abrupt and rude treatment I've ever received in my entire life as a professional."
I find this indictment of Berlo interesting in light of a recent article in the Harvard Business Review titled "Why do so many incompetent men become leaders?" It is certainly relevant to the issue of female coaches and female athletic department administrators, as noted by friend-of-the-blog and activist Pat Griffin.
According to one of the coaches' lawyers--Dan Siegel, who was counsel on the Fresno State cases in which dismissed female coaches won millions in their discrimination lawsuits--the university has not engaged in any conversation about settlement. Right now this appears to be a "digging their heels in" case. Though this case, according to Siegel, is less complicated than the Fresno cases in terms of evidence proving discrimination. It is also notable that both schools are state universities. This means that the burden of either a settlement or award in favor of the plaintiffs will be born by the taxpayers--in one way or another.
I had truly thought that Fresno State would serve as cautionary tale for other institutions. UMD though appears to be on the path to becoming the new (old) Fresno State.
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Another female coach leaves Minnesota Duluth
The hits just keep on coming for University of Minnesota Duluth Athletics.
The women's basketball coach, Annette Wiles, who has compiled a winning record over seven seasons with the Bulldogs, has resigned her position citing the unhealthy work environment. She is the third female coach to leave this year. Hockey coach Shannon Miller was not brought back (her contract expired at the end of the academic year) allegedly because of financial reasons. She was told her salary was too high. The director of hockey operations--who is also the softball coach--was also let go. Though administrators say Jen Banford was only let go from her DOO position, not coaching, but this meant a renegotiated contract with a significant pay cut, so she resigned.
Wiles also left as she was attempting to negotiate a contract (an extension for the one set to expire this summer). A statement to the press from her lawyers, the same ones who are representing Miller and Banford, states the athletic director Josh Berlo refused to discuss this with her.
The news of Wiles's departure was also accompanied by more information about the status of Miller's and Banford's legal actions against UMD. Complaints have been filed with the Equal Employment Commission and they are preparing for a lawsuit. It is not clear whether Wiles will join that lawsuit.
The women's basketball coach, Annette Wiles, who has compiled a winning record over seven seasons with the Bulldogs, has resigned her position citing the unhealthy work environment. She is the third female coach to leave this year. Hockey coach Shannon Miller was not brought back (her contract expired at the end of the academic year) allegedly because of financial reasons. She was told her salary was too high. The director of hockey operations--who is also the softball coach--was also let go. Though administrators say Jen Banford was only let go from her DOO position, not coaching, but this meant a renegotiated contract with a significant pay cut, so she resigned.
Wiles also left as she was attempting to negotiate a contract (an extension for the one set to expire this summer). A statement to the press from her lawyers, the same ones who are representing Miller and Banford, states the athletic director Josh Berlo refused to discuss this with her.
The news of Wiles's departure was also accompanied by more information about the status of Miller's and Banford's legal actions against UMD. Complaints have been filed with the Equal Employment Commission and they are preparing for a lawsuit. It is not clear whether Wiles will join that lawsuit.
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Lots happening on women in coaching and leadership
I have been meaning to write this post for several weeks now and it seems appropriate to do so--finally--on International Women's Day.
There has been a fairly significant (relatively speaking) media attention given to the issue of women coaching women's sports in the past few weeks. Both Erin and I have been speaking to the press and on radio (here, here, and here) answering questions about why there is a lack of female coaches, the specific situations at Iowa and Minnesota Duluth, and if Title IX can address this issue.
The statistics have been stated: the percentage of women coaching women's teams at the intercollegiate level has dropped from approximately 90% when Title IX was passed to its present percentage of approximately 40%; there has been no comparable (or rather none at all) rise in women coaching men's sports. While we appreciate the coverage this issue has received, these are not new numbers. This is not a new problem.
The answer to the why now question is most likely due to these high-profile cases coming in quick succession. It is important to note though that these are high profile cases because the coaches involved have challenged their firings. We have seen coaches file complaints and lawsuits in the past (Fresno State, FGCU are just two examples) after being fired. The frame in these cases though has been one of retaliation. Most of those coaches felt they were being retaliated against for complaining about and challenging the treatment of their women's programs. Title IX's protection against retaliation is clear and several of these cases resulted in large jury awards. They still, however, lost their jobs and many have not gotten back into coaching, in part because the situation for female coaches is so dismal.
This has been the focus of the current debate: the culture in which female coaches work. This is an important conversation (also not new but seemingly now more public). It has also inspired a closer look at programs. The Tucker Center released its women coaches report card recently. Miller and her advocates have spoken about the lack of athletic department support for women's ice hockey. At Iowa, former field hockey coach Beth Beglin compiled a very thorough and quite disheartening report about the state of the athletic department since the women's and men's departments merged in 2000--and more specifically what has happened since current AD Gary Barta took over in 2006. Beglin notes that in this time 83% of female head coaches have been fired. In the same time only 11% of male head coaches have been let go.
Last week the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports released its annual report card about the state of gender and racial equality in intercollegiate sports. From the report summary: College sport received a C+ for racial hiring practices by earning 78.5 points, down from 82.3 points in the 2013 report card. College sport received a C- for gender hiring practices by earning 69.4 points down from 75.9 points.
Lost in the recent conversations have been discussions of race. All of the women we have been talking about are white women. The picture of the female head coach is most often of a white woman. This weekend, discussing stereotypical images of female leaders in sports with friends, I rather uncritically presented a white woman as the norm. And though the statistics certainly bear out this picture, the absence is in dire need of being addressed whenever we are discussing women in leadership positions. The norm has to be challenged.
There has been a fairly significant (relatively speaking) media attention given to the issue of women coaching women's sports in the past few weeks. Both Erin and I have been speaking to the press and on radio (here, here, and here) answering questions about why there is a lack of female coaches, the specific situations at Iowa and Minnesota Duluth, and if Title IX can address this issue.
The statistics have been stated: the percentage of women coaching women's teams at the intercollegiate level has dropped from approximately 90% when Title IX was passed to its present percentage of approximately 40%; there has been no comparable (or rather none at all) rise in women coaching men's sports. While we appreciate the coverage this issue has received, these are not new numbers. This is not a new problem.
The answer to the why now question is most likely due to these high-profile cases coming in quick succession. It is important to note though that these are high profile cases because the coaches involved have challenged their firings. We have seen coaches file complaints and lawsuits in the past (Fresno State, FGCU are just two examples) after being fired. The frame in these cases though has been one of retaliation. Most of those coaches felt they were being retaliated against for complaining about and challenging the treatment of their women's programs. Title IX's protection against retaliation is clear and several of these cases resulted in large jury awards. They still, however, lost their jobs and many have not gotten back into coaching, in part because the situation for female coaches is so dismal.
This has been the focus of the current debate: the culture in which female coaches work. This is an important conversation (also not new but seemingly now more public). It has also inspired a closer look at programs. The Tucker Center released its women coaches report card recently. Miller and her advocates have spoken about the lack of athletic department support for women's ice hockey. At Iowa, former field hockey coach Beth Beglin compiled a very thorough and quite disheartening report about the state of the athletic department since the women's and men's departments merged in 2000--and more specifically what has happened since current AD Gary Barta took over in 2006. Beglin notes that in this time 83% of female head coaches have been fired. In the same time only 11% of male head coaches have been let go.
Last week the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports released its annual report card about the state of gender and racial equality in intercollegiate sports. From the report summary: College sport received a C+ for racial hiring practices by earning 78.5 points, down from 82.3 points in the 2013 report card. College sport received a C- for gender hiring practices by earning 69.4 points down from 75.9 points.
Lost in the recent conversations have been discussions of race. All of the women we have been talking about are white women. The picture of the female head coach is most often of a white woman. This weekend, discussing stereotypical images of female leaders in sports with friends, I rather uncritically presented a white woman as the norm. And though the statistics certainly bear out this picture, the absence is in dire need of being addressed whenever we are discussing women in leadership positions. The norm has to be challenged.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Minnesota-Duluth digs hole deeper
When I give my sport management students scenarios about sport organizations and their responses to or creation of various controversial situations, I do so for several reasons. One is to present examples of non-compliance with laws or policies and ask them to think critically about what went wrong, why, and how. Another is to demonstrate lack of leadership and the consequences of ignorance and/or ego. I ask them (as an example) "do you want to be the athletic director under whose watch multimillion settlements had to be made with victims of retaliation/abuse/discrimination?" Hopefully they get it.
Of course the real test is what they do when they gets jobs in athletics. This is a test that University of Minnesota Duluth Athletic Director Josh Berlo is failing. Last month, as we noted, he announced that women's ice hockey coach, Shannon Miller, would not have her contract renewed because, as the highest paid coach in women's ice hockey (at just over $200,000) the cash-strapped university could not afford her anymore. After considerable outcry--which is ongoing--the chancellor issued a vague statement suggesting that there are other issues:
"The decision to not renew Coach Miller's contract was difficult, but was made thoughtfully after a full review of a number of factors. It's the right decision for the program and I support it. While the decision is sound, we did not communicate it publicly as clearly as I would have liked. We could have communicated this in a less narrow way, and more clearly explained our desire to see the program go in a new direction."
I have already noted how the money rationale was not so much "narrow" as discriminatory. But I am curious about the always-vague but at least equally applied "new direction." The team has won 12 of their 13 games this season. Miller has produced over 20 Olympians and was the national team coach for Canada in the first Olympics that offered women's ice hockey. What direction is UMD looking to take their program? Down?
I have, as I am wont to do, buried the lead. The latest news out of UMD is that a second female coach has been told her contract will not be renewed. Softball coach Jen Banford, who is also very successful and has been at the university for a decade, will no longer be the softball coach.
There seems to be confusion over Banford's dismissal, though. Berlo told ESPNW that the coach would remain the softball coach; it was her position as Director of Operations for women's hockey (i.e., part of Miller's staff) that was being terminated. But a copy of the letter Banford received (which can be found via the above link to Kate Fagan's ESPNW article) very explicitly states that it is both positions. Banford herself confirmed this with Human Resources.
Banford believes she is being retaliated against for her support of Miller and the women's ice hockey program. She too has retained lawyers. The he said/she said is playing out in the media--not in the athletic department offices. Berlo said this is a paperwork issue and that he plans to retain Banford as the softball coach and is merely restructuring her position. Banford told ESPNW: "Josh has not spoken with me in six weeks. To me, it's obvious why he's saying he's in the process of writing a renewal, but if he wanted to give me a renewal, he would have given me that on Dec. 11."
I could never have devised a scenario like this for my students. Two female coaches' contracts not renewed within weeks of one another and with specious rationales for the dismissals; it just would not have been believable. But here we are.
Of course the real test is what they do when they gets jobs in athletics. This is a test that University of Minnesota Duluth Athletic Director Josh Berlo is failing. Last month, as we noted, he announced that women's ice hockey coach, Shannon Miller, would not have her contract renewed because, as the highest paid coach in women's ice hockey (at just over $200,000) the cash-strapped university could not afford her anymore. After considerable outcry--which is ongoing--the chancellor issued a vague statement suggesting that there are other issues:
"The decision to not renew Coach Miller's contract was difficult, but was made thoughtfully after a full review of a number of factors. It's the right decision for the program and I support it. While the decision is sound, we did not communicate it publicly as clearly as I would have liked. We could have communicated this in a less narrow way, and more clearly explained our desire to see the program go in a new direction."
I have already noted how the money rationale was not so much "narrow" as discriminatory. But I am curious about the always-vague but at least equally applied "new direction." The team has won 12 of their 13 games this season. Miller has produced over 20 Olympians and was the national team coach for Canada in the first Olympics that offered women's ice hockey. What direction is UMD looking to take their program? Down?
I have, as I am wont to do, buried the lead. The latest news out of UMD is that a second female coach has been told her contract will not be renewed. Softball coach Jen Banford, who is also very successful and has been at the university for a decade, will no longer be the softball coach.
There seems to be confusion over Banford's dismissal, though. Berlo told ESPNW that the coach would remain the softball coach; it was her position as Director of Operations for women's hockey (i.e., part of Miller's staff) that was being terminated. But a copy of the letter Banford received (which can be found via the above link to Kate Fagan's ESPNW article) very explicitly states that it is both positions. Banford herself confirmed this with Human Resources.
Banford believes she is being retaliated against for her support of Miller and the women's ice hockey program. She too has retained lawyers. The he said/she said is playing out in the media--not in the athletic department offices. Berlo said this is a paperwork issue and that he plans to retain Banford as the softball coach and is merely restructuring her position. Banford told ESPNW: "Josh has not spoken with me in six weeks. To me, it's obvious why he's saying he's in the process of writing a renewal, but if he wanted to give me a renewal, he would have given me that on Dec. 11."
I could never have devised a scenario like this for my students. Two female coaches' contracts not renewed within weeks of one another and with specious rationales for the dismissals; it just would not have been believable. But here we are.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
What should we take from Miller's firing?
This post will start cynical (it has not been a great week for discrimination against women in sports) but I will try to end on an up(ish) note.
So we can now add to the list of things that will get female coaches fired/dismissed/forced into retirement: having too high of a salary. This joins such explanations (which range in legitimacy--I'm not commenting on whether or not they are true, just that they have been offered in some suspect dismissals): having a family, not having a family, pulling a player's shirt, banning white bread, reporting gender inequity, yelling at players, being too feminine, not being feminine enough, too successful, not successful enough.
University of Minnesota Duluth women's hockey head coach Shannon Miller, who coached her team to five NCAA championships, was told this week that her contract is not being renewed (she will finish out the season) because her salary--the highest of any head women's hockey coach at $215,000--is too high for the financially distressed UMD to sustain. Most of those reasons above are never applied to male coaches (yes, Tim Rice at Rutgers--who was caught on videotape--is an exception and lack of success is often a reason male coaches get bought out of their contracts)--but certainly "we're paying you too much, so we have to let you go" is something male coaches do not hear when they are sat down in the athletic director's office to be fired.
This incident cannot be looked at in isolation. Don't forget the story from just a few weeks ago out of Iowa and the apparent pattern of female coaches being fired, not renewed, or entering into early retirement.
Yes, UMD is a different school, this is a different rationale, but it is part of the pattern. We may not know exactly what the pattern is and, unfortunately, I suspect the number of smoking guns that exist to explain things are rare--because I don't believe there is one thing that makes an athletic department fire female coaches. It's about the power of male administrators, beliefs about female leadership, the value of women's sports, the value of female coaches, and so much more.
Though this story broke two days ago, I feel we are a little bit behind given the extensive news coverage. But--and here is the potential upside--doubts are being raised and questions are being asked. Dr. Nicole LaVoi of University of Minnesota has been speaking to the media and also posted on her blog, One Sport Voice, some revealing data about coaching, salaries, and discrimination.
UMD made a mistake not just in firing Miller but in providing a weak justification, which only serves to make people question the actual justification. They also made a mistake in doing it so close to the revelations about what is happening at Iowa. And they underestimated a general public that dislikes overt discrimination. It may be difficult to see and understand structures and systems of discrimination, but it is not hard to see that firing a female coach under the guise of being paid too much when there are other, less successful male coaches who are paid more...well that's gender discrimination.
So we can now add to the list of things that will get female coaches fired/dismissed/forced into retirement: having too high of a salary. This joins such explanations (which range in legitimacy--I'm not commenting on whether or not they are true, just that they have been offered in some suspect dismissals): having a family, not having a family, pulling a player's shirt, banning white bread, reporting gender inequity, yelling at players, being too feminine, not being feminine enough, too successful, not successful enough.
University of Minnesota Duluth women's hockey head coach Shannon Miller, who coached her team to five NCAA championships, was told this week that her contract is not being renewed (she will finish out the season) because her salary--the highest of any head women's hockey coach at $215,000--is too high for the financially distressed UMD to sustain. Most of those reasons above are never applied to male coaches (yes, Tim Rice at Rutgers--who was caught on videotape--is an exception and lack of success is often a reason male coaches get bought out of their contracts)--but certainly "we're paying you too much, so we have to let you go" is something male coaches do not hear when they are sat down in the athletic director's office to be fired.
This incident cannot be looked at in isolation. Don't forget the story from just a few weeks ago out of Iowa and the apparent pattern of female coaches being fired, not renewed, or entering into early retirement.
Yes, UMD is a different school, this is a different rationale, but it is part of the pattern. We may not know exactly what the pattern is and, unfortunately, I suspect the number of smoking guns that exist to explain things are rare--because I don't believe there is one thing that makes an athletic department fire female coaches. It's about the power of male administrators, beliefs about female leadership, the value of women's sports, the value of female coaches, and so much more.
Though this story broke two days ago, I feel we are a little bit behind given the extensive news coverage. But--and here is the potential upside--doubts are being raised and questions are being asked. Dr. Nicole LaVoi of University of Minnesota has been speaking to the media and also posted on her blog, One Sport Voice, some revealing data about coaching, salaries, and discrimination.
UMD made a mistake not just in firing Miller but in providing a weak justification, which only serves to make people question the actual justification. They also made a mistake in doing it so close to the revelations about what is happening at Iowa. And they underestimated a general public that dislikes overt discrimination. It may be difficult to see and understand structures and systems of discrimination, but it is not hard to see that firing a female coach under the guise of being paid too much when there are other, less successful male coaches who are paid more...well that's gender discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)