Minnis v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Universityand Agric. & Mech. Coll.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–00005–BAJ–RLB.
• Citation: 55 F.Supp.3d 864
• Parties: Anthony MINNIS v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

55 F.Supp.3d 864

Anthony MINNIS

v.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE et al.

Civil Action No. 13–00005–BAJ–RLB.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Signed Oct. 21, 2014.

Jill L. Craft, Crystal Lafleur, Jill L. Craft, Attorney at Law, LLC, Baton Rouge, LA, Amanda E. Love, Houston, TX, for Anthony Minnis.

Robert W. Barton, Deborah E. Lamb, Vicki M. Crochet, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, LA, for Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 59), filed by Defendant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“LSU”), seeking an order from this Court dismissing Plaintiff Anthony Minnis's (“Minnis”) claims against it, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Minnis opposes the motion. (Doc. 66). LSU filed a reply memorandum in response to Minnis's memorandum in opposition. (Doc. 76). Oral argument is not necessary. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

I. Background

This is an employment discrimination action brought by Minnis against his former employer, LSU, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”), and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (“LEDL”), La. R.S. § 23:301 et seq. Generally, Minnis's Petition asserts that throughout his employment at LSU, he was subjected to “race-based harassment and discrimination” on account of his race. (Doc. 1–2, ¶ 5).

LSU hired Minnis, a black male, as head coach of its women's tennis team in August 1991. (Doc 1–2, ¶ 2). In his twenty-one years as head coach, Minnis's teams qualified for the National College Athletic Association (“NCAA”) Tournament fifteen times. (Doc 1–2, ¶ 3). Minnis received many awards and accolades during his tenure, including being chosen as Southwest Regional Women's Tennis Coach of the Year five times, and Southeastern Conference (“SEC”) Coach of the Year once. (Id. ). Minnis coached ten All–American tennis players during his tenure at LSU, including the SEC Player of the Year in 2001 and 2007. (Doc 1–2, ¶ 3).

During Minnis's tenure as head coach, the LSU women's tennis team achieved a winning record only four times overall, and in the SEC on only three occasions (1997, 2004, 2008). (Doc. 59–2 at p. 3). His overall SEC win-loss record as head coach was 86–146. (Id. ). While head coach, Minnis's teams competed in the NCAA tournament fifteen out of twenty-one years, but in Minnis's last twelve years, the team never advanced past the second round. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 4). In the year preceding Minnis's termination, his team did not reach the NCAA tournament, and in the three years preceding the non-renewal of Minnis' contract, the women's tennis team had three consecutive losing seasons. (Doc. 59–2 at pp. 3–4).

Throughout the time relevant to this litigation, Jeff Brown, (“Brown”) a white male, was the head coach of the men's tennis team. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 25). Brown was hired in 1998. (Id. ). In calculating Brown's salary, LSU had to compete with another university on at least one occasion because of a competing offer from Texas A & M. (Doc. 59–2 at pp. 20–21). In the five years preceding Minnis's termination, his and Brown's teams had identical records. (Doc. 101 at p. 11). However, in his most successful season, Brown's team achieved a ranking of second in the nation. (Id. ). By contrast, the highest ranking achieved by Minnis's team was eighteenth. (Id. ). In Brown's fifteen years as LSU's head coach, the men's tennis team finished with a higher national ranking than the women's team every year except 2009. (Doc. 59–2 at pp. 25–26). Brown's overall record was 237–142, and his record in the SEC was 89–76. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 26). Over the same fifteen years, Minnis's team had an SEC record of 61–104 and an overall record of 191–174. (Id. ).

Throughout most of his employment, Minnis received written performance evaluations. He was evaluated based on factors such as planning and organization, leadership, sports knowledge, student-athlete management, academic success of student-athletes, level of success in the sport, knowledge of and compliance with NCAA rules, recruiting, team work, judgment, work environment and safety, management and vision. (Id. ). The outcomes of his evaluations generally were mixed.¹ (Doc. 59–2 at pp. 4–5; Doc. 101 at pp. 12–13). Minnis's last evaluation prior to his termination occurred in June 2009. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 26; Doc. 101 at pp. 9–13).

At some point during his employment, Minnis questioned whether he was being adequately compensated. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 7; Doc. 101 at pp. 11–12). However, in his deposition, Minnis conceded that he did not know how LSU calculated his salary. (Doc. 59–2 at pp. 19–20). In response to Minnis's question, LSU consistently maintained that it set Minnis's salary in accordance with his team's ranking and on par with other SEC women's tennis coaches. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 20). In fact, in 2012, of the thirteen other SEC West coaches for which salary information was provided, four made less than or roughly the same as Minnis. (Doc. 71–1 at p. 41). At no point during his employment did Minnis indicate to LSU that he felt the alleged deficiencies in his compensation were in any way connected to his race. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 19).

In early 2008, Minnis complained about racial discrimination. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 7). At that time, following the receipt of a letter from his supervisor, Judy Southard, a white female, Minnis informed two LSU administrators that he believed Southard was a “racist.” (Id. ). They informed Minnis that they disagreed and asked why Minnis reached that conclusion. (Doc. 59– 2 at pp. 94–96; Doc. 59–9 at pp. 43–45) However, Minnis offered no facts to support his contention and there was no further follow-up by the administrators or Minnis. (Id. ).

Minnis also complained to the administration regularly about what he perceived to be inadequate practice facilities at LSU. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 7; Doc. 59–3 at pp. 78–84). During all times pertinent to this litigation, the men's and women's teams used the same outdoor practice facility. (Doc. 59–3 at p. 80). In addition, the men's tennis coach, Brown, also lodged similar complaints about the perceived inadequacy of the facilities, particularly, the lack of an indoor practice facility. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 26).

Minnis was terminated from his position on June 30, 2012. (Doc. 1–2, ¶ 11). Minnis alleges that his replacement, Julia Sell (“Sell”), a white female with “far less experience” is being paid substantially more than he was paid. (Doc. 1–2, ¶ 13). At the time LSU elected not to renew Minnis's contract, his salary was $85,000/year. (Doc. 101 at p. 8). By contrast, Sell signed a four-year contract with a base salary of $110,000.² (Doc. 71–1 at p. 41). Like Minnis, at the time of her hiring, Sell had no prior head coaching experience. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 8). Also like Minnis, Sell's salary was purportedly calculated on par with the salaries of other women's tennis coaches in the SEC at that time. (Doc. 101 at p. 9). Indeed, of the thirteen other SEC West coaches for which salary information for the 2012–2013 season was reported, five were paid more than Sell, and seven made the same as or less than Sell. (Doc. 71–1 at p. 41). In addition, in calculating Sell's salary, LSU contends that it included an additional premium to compensate Sell for the challenges associated with coaching a team with both a historically unsuccessful competitive record and morale issues among the its players. (Doc. 59–2 at p. 8).

Minnis then filed suit against Defendants in state court on November 20, 2012. (Doc. 1–2). Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court on January 3, 2013. (Doc. 1). Minnis filed an Amended Complaint in this Court on May 10, 2013.³ (Doc. 17). Minnis alleges the following causes of action: (1) impairment of his right to contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ; (2) several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (3) claims for discrimination and retaliation based on race in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ; (4) a claim for gender-based discrimination in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ; and (5) claims for discrimination and retaliation under LEDL, La. R.S. § 23:301 et seq. (Doc. 1–2; Doc. 17).

Following a ruling by this Court, all defendants other than LSU have been dismissed. (See Doc. 25). Further, only Minnis's claims for racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII, retaliation under Title IX, and discrimination and retaliation arising under state law remain. (Id. ) As to the instant motion, LSU seeks an order from this Court dismissing Minnis's remaining claims with prejudice and at Minnis's cost. (Doc. 59 at p. 3).

II. Standard of Review

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment, the court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Coleman v. Houston Independent School District, 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir.1997).

After a proper motion for summary judgment is made, the non-movant must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). At this stage, the court does not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes. Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059, 112 S.Ct. 936, 117 L.Ed.2d 107 (199...