Stollings v. Tex. Tech Univ.
| Decision Date | 25 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5:20-CV-250-H |
| Parties | MARLENE STOLLINGS, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
This case followed Texas Tech's termination of its head women's basketball coach, Marlene Stollings. Stollings sued Texas Tech and its Athletic Director, Kirby Hocutt alleging breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement specific performance, violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and sex discrimination and retaliation under both Title VII and Title IX. Stollings also sued Hocutt in his individual capacity for defamation defamation per se, and tortious interference with a contract. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).[1] Defendants argue that these claims should be dismissed because Stollings either fails to adequately plead them or the claims are barred by sovereign or qualified immunity.
The Court grants the motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part. Through the deferential lens applicable to motions to dismiss, the Court finds that Stollings has stated a claim against Texas Tech under Title VII for discrimination and Title IX for retaliation and that these claims are not barred. But the Court finds that the state-law claims are barred by sovereign immunity and that the defendants are not the proper parties to a Section 1983 claim. The Court also dismisses the tort claims against Hocutt because the Texas Tort Claims Act precludes them. Accordingly, the Court dismisses these claims.
Texas Tech University is a public higher-education institution located in Lubbock, Texas and within the Texas Tech University System. Plaintiff Marlene Stollings was the head coach of Texas Tech's women's basketball team from April 2018 until her termination in August 2020. Dkt. No. 15 ¶¶ 2, 31. Defendant Kirby Hocutt is the Athletic Director for Texas Tech and responsible for supervising all collegiate sports at the university. Id. ¶¶ 12, 58. In this role, Hocutt is also responsible for recruiting, vetting, and hiring head coaches and staff for Texas Tech's athletic program. Id. ¶ 59.
In early 2018, Texas Tech approached Stollings about taking over its women's basketball program. Id. ¶ 75. In April 2018, Stollings entered into an employment agreement with Texas Tech that established her as the head coach of the women's basketball team until March 31, 2024. Id. ¶¶ 3, 77. The agreement guaranteed Stollings an annual salary of $300, 000 and set out various bonuses for specified events-such as winning a national-championship game. Id. ¶¶ 83-84.
The employment agreement permitted Texas Tech to terminate Stollings “for cause only if, ‘based on substantial evidence,' Coach Stollings failed to perform her duties or acted in harmful or inappropriate ways, such as a ‘failure or refusal to perform assigned duties' or ‘serious violation of local, state, or federal laws.'” Id. ¶ 85 (quoting Dkt. No. 19 at 10-11). Stollings could also be terminated for cause if she engaged in “objectionable behavior.” Id. ¶ 86. The agreement defined objectionable behavior as:
behavior, actions or activities that (i) subject either Coach or University to substantial ridicule or embarrassment; (ii) substantially adversely affects Coach's or University's reputation; (iii) substantially interferes with or substantially diminishes Coach's standing as a University ambassador and representative; or (iv) are substantially contrary to the best interests of the University, its students, or its athletic program.
Id. (quoting Dkt. No. 19 at 9).
Under the agreement, the determination of whether Stollings engaged in objectionable behavior was in the sole discretion of Texas Tech's president. Dkt. No. 19 at 10. If terminated for cause, Texas Tech would be required to pay Stollings her salary until her date of termination. Dkt. No. 15 ¶ 88. If wrongfully terminated, Texas Tech would be required to pay Stollings under the liquidated-damages clause in the amount of 75% of her base salary. Id. ¶ 89.
Stollings represents that under her guidance, the women's basketball team began to perform better not only in the sport, but also in the classroom. Id. ¶ 18. Despite this success, she alleges that some members of the team “did not want to provide the energy and resources needed to achieve success” and decided to transfer to other programs. Id. ¶¶ 19- 20. Stollings alleges that in order for the players to have a smooth transition to another program, “NCAA rules require that student-athletes must claim that the transfer is based on a desire to avoid a negative atmosphere or for physical and mental health reasons.” Id. ¶ 21. Consequently, in late summer 2019, these departing students gave negative feedback about Stollings's program. Id. ¶ 129.
Following the negative feedback from the departing students, Texas Tech conducted two internal reviews of the women's basketball program. Id. ¶¶ 139, 170. Stollings represents that these reviews ultimately concluded that she had not acted inappropriately. Id. ¶ 24. Despite this conclusion, in August 2020, USA Today published an article that included interviews from the departing students about their experiences in Stollings's program. Id. ¶ 26. Stollings alleges that the contents of the article were false and unsubstantiated and that Hocutt assured her that she had Texas Tech's support. Id. ¶ 27.
In March 2020, Stollings was informed of sexual-harassment allegations involving a member of her coaching staff and a student-athlete. Id. ¶ 162. Stollings reported these allegations to the Texas Tech Athletic Department, which then initiated a Title IX investigation. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Stollings claims that Hocutt and the department were previously aware of these violations but intentionally ignored them. Id. ¶ 165-66. Consequently, Stollings alleges that this reporting and her participation in the Title IX investigation threatened to embarrass the athletic department and Hocutt. Id. ¶ 12. Texas Tech filed a Title IX complaint against the member of the coaching staff, who subsequently resigned before the investigation was completed. Id. ¶ 169.
As a result of these events, Texas Tech conducted its second internal review of Stollings's program. Id. ¶ 170. This investigation touched on both the alleged Title IX violation and the topics of the first internal review regarding the program's environment. Id. ¶ 173. Stollings alleges that like the first review, the results of the second investigation were positive with no adverse findings with respect to Stollings. Id. ¶¶ 176-77. However, following this review, Hocutt requested Stollings “to agree to three action items in order to alleviate any public scrutiny of the program.” Id. ¶ 179. These were that Stollings (1) take a one-year moratorium from using the heart-rate monitoring system; (2) keep watch on a particular coaching staff member's communication with student-athletes; and (3) make a special effort to be more available to the student-athletes. Id. She agreed to do so. Id.
Despite his support, Stollings alleges that Hocutt devised a scheme to salvage his own job by terminating hers to strategically draw blame away from himself. Id. ¶¶ 28-30. Stollings asserts that Texas Tech proceeded to terminate her at Hocutt's insistence in August 2020. Id. ¶ 31. Stollings alleges that her termination was a direct result of her actions in raising sexual-harassment concerns and participating in the Title IX investigation that brought negative publicity to Hocutt and the university. Id. ¶ 198.
Stollings maintains that her termination was also based on Texas Tech's “discriminatory biases against female and gay and lesbian coaches.” Id. ¶ 34. Stollings alleges that she and other female and gay and lesbian coaches were penalized for the same conduct of which male and heterosexual coaches were praised. See Id. ¶ 35. Stollings also claims that her efforts to obtain additional support and resources for women's sports were met with resistance and eventual retaliation in the form of her termination. Id. ¶ 15. Stollings alleges that the defendants propagated an unwritten rule that female and gay and lesbian coaches were required to accept lesser treatment than male heterosexual coaches. Id. Specifically, she alleges that Texas Tech administrators, including Hocutt, regularly made derogatory remarks about women to her or around her and made statements characterizing women as untrustworthy and overly emotional. Id. ¶¶ 93-98. Moreover, she alleges that she was reprimanded for instituting the same training procedures as had been praised by male coaches-namely the heartrate monitoring system that she was instructed to cease using. See Id. ¶ 179.
After her termination, Stollings alleges that Hocutt “made knowingly false and malicious defamatory public statements” about her at a press conference. Id. ¶¶ 206-07. Specifically, his statements addressed her in both her personal and professional capacity with respect to her role as the women's basketball head coach and her relationship with the team. Id.
Stollings filed her Original Complaint in October 2020. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 12. Prior to responding to the motion, Stollings filed her First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 15), which is the current operative pleading at this stage. Stollings brings claims against Texas Tech and Hocutt in his official capacity for breach...
To continue reading
Request your trial