ILNews

7th Circuit rules on IUPUI discrimination case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated one grant of summary judgment and affirmed another in favor of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis in a discrimination suit. A former women's tennis coach had brought the age and gender discrimination suit against the university after she was fired.

In Debbie A. Peirick v. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Athletic Department, et al., No. 06-1538, the federal appellate court heard the appeal of Peirick, who was the women's tennis coach at IUPUI for 13 years. Peirick was fired after her best season as head coach without any warning. She sued IUPUI, its athletic department, and Indiana University's Board of Trustees, claiming her termination was motivated by gender and age. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both claims.

Peirick always met IUPUI expectations for coaches during her tenure as head coach, including excellent academic performance by student athletes, community service, budgeting, professional conduct, and athletic competition. She never had violated an NCAA rule. It was only in the months before her termination in 2003 did IUPUI's Athletic Director Michael Moore, and Assistant Athletic Director Denise O'Grady decide Peirick should be fired.

Between April and June 2003, Moore and O'Grady heard from students who complained about Peirick's driving while at a competition, use of foul language, and her handling of a scheduling conflict with the Indianapolis Tennis Center, where the team practiced and competed. Peirick wanted to reserve the Tennis Center to host the Mid-Continent Conference Tournament, but it was already booked. When students learned of it, Peirick told the students it was the athletic administration's fault because they didn't schedule the space in time.

Moore and O'Grady claim Peirick's lie to her students about the Tennis Center was the last straw requiring her termination, but Peirick was never given any kind of warning or reprimand because of her behavior. After her firing, IUPUI hired the 23-year-old sister of the men's tennis coach to coach the women's team.

The 7th Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of IUPUI because questions of material fact existed on Peirick's gender discrimination claim. Peirick named two other male coaches at IUPUI that were similarly situated with her as far as questionable conduct. These two male coaches engaged in serious violations of Indiana University's Statement of Principles on the Conduct of Participants in Student Athletic Programs, like Peirick, but they were given progressive discipline instead of being fired without warning and were treated more favorably than Peirick. The school's delay in explaining why Peirick was fired and its unusual conduct create a question of fact concerning the legitimacy of its explanations for Peirick's termination, wrote Judge Anne Claire Williams.

The federal appellate court did uphold the summary judgment in favor of IUPUI on Peirick's age discrimination claim because the defendants are immune from suit. The 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution shields them from suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 to 634. The athletics department is a division of the university and cannot be sued. IUPUI and Indiana University's Board of Governors are agencies of the state and also cannot be sued. The 11th Amendment usually bars actions in federal court against a state, state agency, or state officials acting in their official capacities, so the District Court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of IUPUI, wrote Judge Williams.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT