Opinion
05 Civ. 0848 (CM)(GAY).
July 11, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Introduction
Plaintiff Craig Holcomb was employed by defendant Iona College from 1995 to 2004 as an assistant coach of the men's basketball team, the Iona Gaels. By the early 2000s, the once-successful Gaels stumbled: team academic performance declined, morale was visibly poor, and the team's won-loss record dropped below .500 in two of three seasons. The fans howled; the pundits raged; Iona's administration called for reform. Ultimately, Iona's President, Brother James Liguori, asked Director of Athletics Shawn Brennan to submit several proposals to overhaul the men's basketball program. Eventually, in consultation with his vice presidents, Liguori fired two of the Gaels' three assistant coaches, including Holcomb.
Holcomb brought suit against the College under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that his marriage — he is white and his wife is African-American — was a factor in Iona's decision to fire him. He further alleges that Brennan and Richard Petriccione, Brennan's predecessor as Director of Athletics, had a known bias against minorities, and influenced the Board's decision to keep minorities out of fundraising events.
Iona now moves for summary judgment on Holcomb's claim. For the reasons set forward below, that motion is granted.
Facts
Plaintiff Craig Holcomb was hired as an assistant coach of the Iona College men's basketball team in 1995. He was taken on at the request of head coach Tim Welsh, who recruited Holcomb from a coaching position at Spartanburg Methodist Junior College. Deposition of Timothy Welsh ("Welsh Dep.") at 9:21-10:7. Welsh, like most Division I coaches, was given wide latitude to select his assistants. Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts ("Pl. SOMF") ¶ 137. However, Richard Petriccione, Iona's Director of Athletics at that time, knew of and approved Holcomb's hiring. Affidavit of Richard Petriccione ("Petri. Aff.") ¶ 17.
Holcomb reported to the head coach of the team and to the Director of Athletics, who in turn reported to the college president, Brother James Liguori. Petri. Aff. ¶ 6. His duties included overseeing practices, maintaining team discipline and training, and scouting potential talent at area high schools and junior colleges.
Three years later, Welsh left Iona to become head coach of the Providence College Friars. Welsh Dep. at 7:6-10. Jeff Ruland, an assistant coach, Iona alum, and two-time NBA All Star, was promoted to head coach. Affidavit of Craig Holcomb ("Holc. Aff.") ¶¶ 5-6. Holcomb was in turn given the new title of "Associate Head Coach." Id. ¶ 6. His job responsibilities were apparently unchanged.
From 1998 to 2001, the team enjoyed great success — winning the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAC) tournament in 1998, 2000, and 2001 (thus earning berths in the NCAA tournament those years), and winning the MAAC regular season crown in 2001. Affidavit of Shawn Brennan ("Brenn. Aff.") ¶ 16. The Gaels' combined won-loss record between 1997 and 2001 was 74-50. Defendant's Statement of Material Facts ("Def. SOMF") ¶ 20.
In 2001, Petriccione was promoted from Director of Athletics to Vice President for Advancement and External Affairs. Shawn Brennan, a former Iona coach, took over as Director of Athletics. Def. SOMF ¶ 7.
Also that year, Ruland signed a new eight-year contract, worth over $300,000 a year. This contract made Ruland the highest paid employee at Iona. It also made it expensive to get rid of him. Holcomb continued to serve as Associate Head Coach under Ruland, and received a $25,000 raise. Deposition of Jeff Ruland, 12:14-16. There were two other two assistant coaches at this time: Tony Chiles (African-American) and Rob O'Driscoll (white).
Over the next three years, the men's basketball program entered a period of decline. The team went 41-47 from 2001 to 2004 and failed to earn a berth in the NCAA or NIT tournament during those three seasons. Def. SOMF ¶ 13. The Gaels were criticized by fans and the local media as lacking discipline and drive. Id. ¶¶ 18, 27-31.
Off the court, the team was equally disappointing. Two starters were dismissed after the 2002-2003 season, and two more were suspended mid-way though the 2003-2004 season, for failing to meet academic requirements or violating team rules. Brenn. Aff. ¶¶ 18-19, 22. One of the two suspended in 2004 was DeShaun Williams, a highly-touted recruit who had been brought in, in part, by Holcomb; the other was Steven Smith, also a highly regarded member of the team. Id.; Deposition of Shawn Brennan ("Brenn. Dep.") at 62:15-18. In late 2001, several players were accused of misusing book vouchers — using chits provided by the college to purchase books not required for their courses, which they presumably re-sold for cash. Brenn. Dep. at 49:12-50:4. The students were ordered to make restitution to the college, although Brennan did not report the incident to the NCAA or keep a written record of his investigation Id. at 51:5-18.
In October 2003, the NCAA informed Brennan that it was looking into possible violations of league rules by Iona players and coaches. Both Ruland and O'Driscoll were interviewed in connection with that investigation. Holcomb was not. Brenn. Dep. at 33:19-34:7.
The Iona administration resolved to shake up the program. In a Journal News article dated January 25, 2004, Liguori was quoted as saying that the team was not performing up to expectations and he was "not a happy camper." Jane McManus, Ruland Hears Distress Signals at Iona, Journal News, Jan. 25, 2004. Ruland vowed that, "If it doesn't turn around, then we'll make the appropriate change after the season." Id. Two months later, the Journal News published a second article on Iona's suspension of Smith and Williams. See Jane McManus, Iona Looks Forward with an Academic Eye, Journal News, Mar. 8, 2004.
The Iona administration apparently felt likewise: in March 2004, Brennan was asked by Liguori and the Iona Board of Trustees to put together a written evaluation of the program and to make recommendations for reform. Brenn. Dep. at 97:2-20.
Brennan apparently presented a preliminary report and a final report to Liguori and Iona's vice presidents: Petriccione (Vice President for Advancement and External Affairs), Sister Marie Thornton (Vice President for Finance), and Dr. Warren Rosenberg (Provost). Brenn. Dep. at 136:23-137:17. The preliminary report suggested three possible courses of action: fire the entire coaching staff, including Ruland; fire the assistant coaches but retain Ruland; or do nothing vis-a-vis the staff. Holc. Aff., Ex. 4; Brenn. Dep. at 131. The preliminary report also called for a four week evaluation process before making any final decision. During that period, Brennan conducted interviews with players and coaches. Petriccione had casual conversations with Brennan during this period, but he was not formally interviewed and did not participate in drafting the final report. Petri. Dep. at 33:16-25. In addition to these interviews, Brennan relied on information passed to him prior to the investigation in conversations he had with players, coaches, alumni, and administrators, including Petriccione. Brenn. Dep. at 103:6-104:20.
In late March, Brennan provided a revised report offering the final proposals for consideration: the three listed above, and a fourth option — putting the coaching staff on notice and implementing a 25-point program to rehabilitate the department. Brenn. Aff., Ex. F. In his cover memorandum, Brennan supported this fourth option. He counseled that terminating the assistants without terminating Ruland would be "detrimental to the program."Id. Terminating Ruland, of course, was impossible due to Ruland's sizable contract. The report also asserted that one of the assistants, Chiles, would not be returning to the program next year, and one or both other assistants might also be departing. Id. His cover memorandum concluded that, "The staff has delivered successes . . . I think they need to be refocused on what is important." Id.
Brennan believed that Ruland was responsible for the team's lack of discipline and poor public image, and thought he might resign if his assistants were fired. Brenn. Dep. at 128:8-9, 128:24-129:3. His preliminary report even alluded to that possibility, although his final report counseled against firing the assistants. Brenn. Aff., Ex. F. Brennan also believed Holcomb's recruiting efforts had been substandard; he had said as much in private conversations with Petriccione. Brenn. Dep. at 61:8-16. The report, however, does not mention that observation. Brenn. Aff., Ex F.
O'Driscoll, as the "third" (most junior) assistant coach, was not involved in recruiting. It is unclear whether Chiles or Ruland played extensive roles in recruiting.
The report did not address the merits of the assistant coaches individually, aside from one line under the heading "Administrative Perception," which reads, "Rob O'Driscoll works very well with others across campus." Brenn. Aff., Ex. F. The final report does criticize the entire coaching staff as a unit, stating "they can't get along," they paid "no attention to program details," and they lacked a "fundamental understanding of how college basketball works." Id.
The preliminary draft read, "Rob O'Driscoll is excellent." Brenn. Aff., Ex. F.
The final report was presented to the vice presidents and Liguori by conference call. Petriccione and Brennan supported the new proposal: placing the coaching staff on notice and implementing the 25-point program. Petri. Dep. at 37:1-15. Liguori, Thornton and Rosenberg, however, were adamant that more direct action should be taken, and called for the termination of all three assistants. Brenn. Dep. at 137:10-138:5; Deposition of James Liguori ("Lig. Dep.") at 31:3-5.
What happened thereafter is not clear. Liguori recalled only this one call — at the end of which the decision was made to terminate Holcomb and Chiles and to retain O'Driscoll. He did not explain why O'Driscoll was retained, although he recalled having read a positive statement about O'Driscoll in the report. Lig. Dep. at 22.
Petriccione testified that Liguori and the vice presidents took part in at least two more conference calls. The first involved members of the Iona Board of Trustees (but not Brennan). Petri. Dep. at 40:11-15. In that call, the report and its proposals were debated, and Petriccione recalls at least two Trustees who favored retaining all the assistant coaches. Petri. Dep. at 40:17-21. In a second phone conference among Liguori, Petriccione, Thornton, and Rosenberg, the decision was made to fire Chiles and Holcomb, but to retain O'Driscoll and Ruland.Id. at 39:10-19. According to Petriccione, there was no formal vote: it was the practice at the college for the president and his vice presidents to reach a consensus and announce that decision as unanimous. Petri. Dep. at 39:2-8. Petriccione was not asked what factors were considered, or how the final decision to retain O'Driscoll was reached.
Petriccione's version of events is partially substantiated by Brennan, who recalls that no decision was reached during the conference call in which he participated, and that he was informed of the final decision by Liguori in a face-to-face meeting. Brenn. Dep. at 138:16-22. Brennan stated that he believed retaining an assistant was key to program continuity and, of the three assistants, O'Driscoll was carrying out his duties "to the best of his ability." Brenn. Dep. at 139:9-22.
Brennan communicated the substance of the final decision to Ruland, who, until that point, had no idea that his assistant coaches were slated for termination. Pl. SOMF ¶ 191. Brennan apparently stated at that meeting that he believed Ruland's assistants were not giving him the support that he needed. Pl. SOMF, Ex. 8. According to Brennan's notes from that meeting, Ruland apparently stated that he would "go to the wall" for Holcomb. Id., Brenn. Dep. at 59:4-7.
The record is silent about any steps Ruland may have taken to seek Holcomb's reinstatement. What the record reveals is that Holcomb was asked to resign; he refused, and he was terminated by letter dated May 14, 2004. Tony Chiles was also asked to resign or face termination; he chose to resign at some point in May. Declaration of Tony Chiles, ¶ 1.
O'Driscoll was told that his position was secure, but that Liguori had ordered Chiles and Holcomb to be fired. Deposition of Rob O'Driscoll ("O'Driscoll Dep.") at 18:6-19.
Unbeknownst to the Board, O'Driscoll had been in the job market and had already been offered a better position elsewhere: the first assistant coach's position at nearby Marist College. Concerned with his prospects at Iona in light of the recent events, O'Driscoll accepted the offer at Marist one week after Holcomb's termination. Id. at 6:8-17; 22:1-9.
The program's difficulties were not yet over. By letter dated April 30, 2004, the NCAA informed Brennan of the results of its investigation into the men's program. It indicated that there had been several "secondary violations" in the men's basketball program. Brenn. Dep. at 44: 1-21.
The final NCAA report on the violations was issued on June 24, 2004. Id. at 45:15-46:7. The report traced one of two "secondary" violations to the now-resigned O'Driscoll. Id. According to O'Driscoll, the report cited him for moving the personal belongings of one of the players from a dorm to his garage. O'Driscoll Dep. at 19:12-19. Both Brennan and O'Driscoll assert that O'Driscoll's departure from Iona was voluntary and he was not pressured to leave prior to the release of the final NCAA report in June. Id. at 8:11-14; Brenn. Dep. at 47:18-25.
One month later, in July 2004, Brennan left Iona to work for AdPro, an apparel company. Brenn. Dep. at 8:5-9. The reason for his departure is not part of the record.
Holcomb has been married to Pamela Gauthier, an African-American woman, since 2000. Holc. Aff. ¶ 157.
During the period that Holcomb was employed at Iona, the Athletics Department employed several coaches who were known to be involved in interracial relationships. Jeff Ruland, who is white, was dating and is now engaged to an African-American friend of Gauthier's, Iris Hansen. Def. SOMF ¶ 51. Anthony Bozzella, the white head coach of the women's basketball team, is married to a woman from the Philippines. Def. SOMF ¶ 56. Monge Codio Jr., assistant coach of the women's basketball team, is an African-American male who is married to a white woman. Def. SOMF ¶ 60. And Sharon Abbatte, Assistant Athletic Director, a white woman, was involved in a relationship with an African-American. Def. SOMF ¶ 60. Moreover, Sam Worthen, one of the replacement assistant coaches hired after Holcomb's termination, was African-American. Def. SOMF ¶ 65.
After his termination, Holcomb filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging that he was dismissed because of his status as the spouse of a minority. He based this assertion on two factors: first, actions taken by Brennan to restrict attendance at functions sponsored by the Goal Club, the Athletic Department's alumni fundraising arm; and second, Petriccione's history of racist and racially insensitive conduct.
The Goal Club
The Goal Club is an alumni fundraising and social organization dedicated to the support of Iona athletics. Members, most of whom are alumni (and white), pay an annual fee to the Athletics Department, and in return are invited to attend special functions and parties. Brennan Aff. at ¶¶ 76-77. During the men's basketball season, the Goal Club routinely holds post-game receptions with the players and coaches.
From at least 1997 until 2003, high school basketball players from local schools, including potential basketball recruits, were permitted to attend these post-game parties. Holcomb asserts that the majority of high school students who attended Goal Club events were African-American. Holc. Aff. ¶ 161. It is not clear whether high school basketball players were ever invited to Goal Club events specifically for recruiting purposes, although that might well not matter for NCAA purposes.
The policy of permitting high school students to attend was apparently supported by Petriccione during his tenure as Director of Athletics. He believed the presence of high school students was permissible, although rules were put in place restricting contact between alumni and high school students during Goal Club events. Petri. Dep. at 61:5-13.
The practice changed after a November 29, 2003 home game, when the College's Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance, Jamie Fogarty, saw a heavily-recruited high school player named Dexter Grey at a Goal Club reception. Fogarty was concerned that Grey's presence violated NCAA recruiting regulations. Brenn. Aff. at ¶¶ 90, 93. According to Brennan, Fogarty telephoned the NCAA regarding the issue and was informed that Iona was in fact in violation of NCAA rules. Id. at ¶ 96. After Fogarty told him this, Brennan called coaches and athletic directors at other local colleges, and learned that none of them permit high school students to attend equivalent functions. Id. at ¶¶ 103-107. In light of these findings, he barred high school students from future Goal Club events.
According to NCAA's Bylaws, a school may contact a prospective student-athlete only through "authorized institutional staff members." NCAA Bylaws, § 13.1.2. Contact between alumni and prospective student-athletes violates that rule. The NCAA also strictly regulates the number and nature of contacts (especially campus visits) that a recruit can have with members of the coaching staff, who were present at these Goal Club post-game functions.
Holcomb met with Brennan on December 1, 2003 to discuss the new policy. Holc. Dep. at 70-71. Holcomb apparently believed that the new policy would hurt recruiting, and that the old rule was, at worst, within a grey area of NCAA rules. Id. at 71-72. Brennan listened to Holcomb, but did not offer to reverse the new policy.Id.
During this meeting, Brennan also informed Holcomb that his wife, as well as her friend Iris Hansen (the African-American woman who was dating Ruland), should no longer attend Goal Club functions, because they were neither alumni nor donors. Id. at 72-73. Based on this conversation, Holcomb concluded that Iona was attempting to limit minority presence at its fund-raising events. Id. at 100.
Brennan disputes Holcomb's version of events. He asserts that Gauthier and Hansen were always permitted to attend Goal Club events as a courtesy. Brenn. Dep. at 206:7-15. The dispute is not material to this motion.
Holcomb told Ruland about his conversation with Brennan, including Brennan's decision to exclude Hansen and Gauthier. Deposition of Jeff Ruland at 44:5-45:19. Ruland was understandably irate, although he did not discuss the policy with Brennan. Id. After the ban, Hansen attended several more Goal Club events without comment from Brennan (or anyone else), before she voluntarily stopped coming. Id. Ruland continued to attend Goal Club events, but less frequently. Id.
Richard Petriccione's Tenure at Iona
As described above, Petriccione had been Director of Athletics when Holcomb was hired and when Ruland was promoted to head coach. Petriccione was himself promoted and, as Vice President for Advancement and External Affairs, participated in the decision to terminate the assistant coaches.
According to Holcomb, Petriccione often used offensive language while speaking about Iona's (mostly black) men's basketball team. As early as 1995 or 1996, Holcomb heard Petroccione say, "Everybody at Fordham thinks they have these good black kids and Iona has niggers." Holc. Dep. at 123:9-11. A year later, when several black members of the Gaels were accused of violating school rules by selling the use of their telephone access codes, Petriccione told Holcomb that there was no control in the basketball program and that the coaches needed to ". . . keep [their] niggers in line." Id. at 124:24-125:1. Holcomb remembers being shocked, although he did not report these remarks to anyone at Iona at that time. Id. Petriccione allegedly used the same or similar language on numerous other occasions between 1997 and 2000. Id. at 127:7-12.
Apparently, the players were accused of mis-using telephone access codes issued to coaches and other faculty. The issue is not made clear in the record.
On February 4, 2000, Petriccione ran into Holcomb at the Beechmont Tavern after an Iona home game against Canisius College. Affidavit of Patrick Smeraldo, ¶ 1. Petriccione, having recently learned about Holcomb's engagement to Gauthier, asked if he was going to marry an "Aunt Jemima" and called him a "nigger lover." Id. Petriccione does not recall this conversation. Petri. Aff. ¶ 12.
Petriccione's use of racial epithets in everyday speech was observed by other Iona employees after he was promoted to Vice President. According to Bonnie Sirower, Director of Annual Giving under Petriccione, he often used inappropriate language in the office, such as referring to an Italian-American graduate as a "guinea," to Sirower herself as "his favorite Jew," and to a Nigerian member of the Alumni Giving Office as a "jungle bunny" and an "African princess." Deposition of Bonnie Sirower at 16:7-18:9. Later, when the same Nigerian woman sought a promotion, he turned her down and commented to Sirower, "Who does she think she is coming from a hut in Africa and thinking she could apply for this job?" Id. at 16:8-10. Sirower did not believe that Petriccione was a bigot, but thought his behavior "was inappropriate and [he] said things that really were not becoming or suitable for a person, especially . . . a vice president." Id. at 21:13-18.
Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the court will grant summary judgment if the evidence offered shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). Furthermore, where a plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of his claim, "there can be `no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 322-33. On a motion for summary judgment, the court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-movants and resolves all ambiguities and draws all reasonable inferences against the movants. See United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S. Ct. 993 (1962); Donahue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Commn'rs, 834 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1987).
Claims of employment discrimination are analyzed under the "burden-shifting" framework defined in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93, S. Ct. 1817 (1973), and Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089 (1981). The burden initially falls upon the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. To do so, plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was performing his duties satisfactorily; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) that the action occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on plaintiff's membership in that class. See McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 109 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997). The plaintiff's burden in establishing a prima facie case is de minimis. Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir. 1994).
An adverse employment action exists if plaintiff undergoes a "materially adverse change" in the terms and conditions of employment. Galabya v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 2000). "A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices . . . unique to a particular situation." Id. (quoting Crady v. Liberty Nat'l Bank Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1993)).
Once plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. Dawson v. Bumble Bumble, 398 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir. 2005). If such a reason is established, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reasons for his termination were pretextual, and that the motivating factor for his termination was racial discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993). Courts are required to examine "the entire record to determine whether the plaintiff could satisfy his `ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.'"Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2000) (citingReeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000)).
B. The Record
Plaintiff's theory of the case, to which he has adhered since the filing of his EEOC complaint, is as follows. He asserts that Brennan, as Director of Athletics, was in league with his predecessor, Petriccione, whose personal bias against minorities was well-known. Petriccione became convinced that the presence of minorities at Goal Club events was detrimental to its fundraising efforts and ordered Brennan to remove minorities from the Goal Club. Brennan complied — he barred high school athletes from attending post-game events, as well as Holcomb's wife and Ruland's girlfriend (both African-Americans) for good measure. Later, when Liguori announced his plan to reform the basketball program, Petriccione and Brennan drafted recommendations that resulted in the removal of minorities (and those married to minorities) from the ranks of the coaching staff. The two then orchestrated Liguori's acceptance of the plan.
Iona asserts that plaintiff was fired as part of a general overhaul of the men's basketball program, to which the Goal Club, Petriccione's history of racially insensitive comments, and the race of Holcomb's wife were immaterial.
The evidence on the record is plainly sufficient to establish plaintiff's prima facie case. He suffered an adverse job action in the form of termination without warning or an opportunity to apply for another position; he was generally qualified to hold the position of assistant coach; and he was a member of a protected class according to case law in this Circuit. See Rosenblatt v. Bivona Cohen, P.C., 946 F. Supp. 298, 299-300 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Iona argues that Holcomb has not met his burden of production as to the last element — the circumstances of his termination do not support an inference of discrimination — because there is no record evidence that Liguori, Rosenberg, or Thornton knew his wife's race, let alone that it factored into their decision-making. Because a spouse's race may not be apparent to decision-makers, the Second Circuit requires the plaintiff to offer some evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge that the plaintiff was in such a class and his replacement was not.Cf. Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69, 90 (2d Cir. 2005). Iona argues that there is no such evidence in the record.
However, at least one vice president — Richard Petriccione — knew Holcomb and was aware that he was married to a black woman. He even commented about it, in a way that is undeniably offensive. Brennan, who drafted the recommendations, also knew that Holcomb's wife was black. Their knowledge, taken with the facially discriminatory pattern of termination (a black coach and a white coach married to a black woman are fired, while the white coach currently under investigation by the NCAA remains) are sufficient to meet the plaintiff's de minimis burden at this stage.
Indeed, courts often skip over this step altogether and simply proceed to see whether a race-neutral explanation has been given and whether there is evidence to support a finding of pretext. Ford v. Cons. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 9587, 2006 WL 538116, *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2006); Peterson v. City College, 32 F. Supp. 2d 675, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Iona also asserts that the Athletics Department had hired minorities and members of interracial couples in the past, and continued to hire them after Holcomb's departure. Evidence about such hires weighs against an inference that Iona's decision to fire Holcomb was based on animus against those involved in interracial relationships. But at this point all we are talking about is the establishment of a prima facie case — hardly an onerous burden.
This brings us to the second phase of McDonnell-Douglas: defendant must advance a facially non-discriminatory reason for Holcomb's termination.
There is no question that Iona possessed a non-discriminatory reason to reform the men's basketball program in 2004. There is uncontested objective evidence of academic suspensions, NCAA investigations, and poor on-court performance. That warranted remedial action by the administration. The local press had run several articles on Iona's apparent inability to maintain discipline or academic standards. Liguori and Ruland promised changes after the 2003-2004 season if the Gaels' fortunes did not improve, and they did not. As any fan knows, the first step in revamping a failing sports program is to fire all or part of the coaching staff.
The assistant coaches were fired to send a message — to Ruland, the players and the public — that the team's failures were being taken seriously. Iona's selection of the assistant coaches as the "messengers" might have been misguided, but it is not discriminatory as a matter of law. "The employer may fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or no reason at all, so long as its action is not for a discriminatory reason." Mohamed v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 141, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (quoting Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Commc'ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir. 1984)).
However, that is only half the story. Defendant did not decide to terminate all the assistant coaches — it only fired two of three. At some time during their deliberations, the vice presidents and Liguori decided to retain one assistant, and selected the white coach who was not in an interracial relationship. This option was not mentioned in Brennan's written report to Liguori, and neither party saw fit to develop the record surrounding this critical moment in the deliberations that led to Holcomb's termination.
The record, however, does include the following facially non-discriminatory reasons for such a decision: all the decision-makers reached a consensus that one assistant should be retained for the sake of program continuity. O'Driscoll is mentioned by name in Brennan's report as working well with other departments. Brennan had also stated in private conversations with Petriccione that he did not like the players Holcomb had recruited — although it is unclear whether any decision-maker knew about Brennan's dissatisfaction. O'Driscoll, as third assistant, was not involved in recruiting. Where the decision-makers had little connection to the individuals they were firing, such apparently trivial factors could have been sufficient to sway the decision in O'Driscoll's favor.
And so we arrive at McDonnell-Douglas Phase III: the burden of production shifts to Holcomb to establish that the stated reasons for his termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Holcomb alleges that the entire process was pretextual almost from the beginning: Brennan and Petriccione, under the rubric of a neutral evaluation, arranged for the termination of the assistants to keep them out of the Goal Club.
Holcomb points to Petriccione's history of racist conduct and Brennan's decisions regarding Goal Club attendance, including banning Holcomb's wife, as evidence of this plan. While Brennan disputes that he issued any such ban, I will, for purposes of this motion only, assume that the conversation took place and the ban on wives and girlfriends (or at least Holcomb's wife and Ruland's girlfriend) at Goal Club events was instituted.
However, Holcomb has not established any facts that link these alleged racist tendencies (which are discussed below) to the administration's evaluation of the basketball program. Even if I were to discount the testimony of Brennan and Petriccione, the alleged malefactors, the substance of Brennan's final report is unequivocal: he states that firing the assistants would be "detrimental to the program" and recommends keeping them. The record also makes clear that Brennan made this recommendation after Liguori indicated that he leaned towards firing some or all of the coaching staff. If Brennan were indeed trying to influence Iona's evaluation in order to get rid of Holcomb, his strong advocacy of a compromise that would have let the assistants keep their jobs was hardly the way to do it.
Moreover, Brennan and Petriccione vocally advocated to Liguori that, if Ruland could not be bought out of his large contract, the assistant coaches should be retained. Liguori, who is not linked to any past discriminatory conduct, took responsibility for overturning Brennan's recommendation and ordering the two assistants fired. In sum, Holcomb's contention that Brennan and Petriccione were behind the decision to fire the assistant coaches has no basis in the evidence. `
The record, as noted above, is largely silent as to the second critical decision point: the decision to keep O'Driscoll. Brennan's written report contains a brief reference to O'Driscoll's being well-liked and working well with others, but is silent as to what (if any) objective evidence existed for such a statement. It says nothing at all about Holcomb or Chiles.
Brennan's statement may or may not be accurate. However, it strains credulity to conclude that Brennan listed a single positive fact about O'Driscoll in order to influence the vice presidents. To believe that, one must believe that Brennan somehow knew his strongly worded recommendation to keep the assistants would not be heeded, and inserted his one-line paean to O'Driscoll in order to influence Liguori and the others to retain O'Driscoll. Brennan left out of his report his more severe reservations about Holcomb's recruiting abilities; again, hardly the action of someone out to get the plaintiff.
So, somehow a race-neutral suggestion to terminate all assistant coaches became a decision to terminate only Holcomb and Chiles. Since it is plaintiff's burden to establish pretext, one would have thought plaintiff might have asked some questions about how that decision was reached. But plaintiff elicited no testimony about how the decision was reached, or what role (if any) Petriccione or Brennan played in shaping the debate, creating the compromise, or advocating for O'Driscoll once it became clear that Brennan's suggestion that all the assistants be retained was not going to pass. However, the record is devoid of evidence that Brennan participated in the final decision, or that either Brennan or Petriccione promoted any solution except retaining all three assistants and re-educating the coaching staff.
Moreover, despite plaintiff's allegations of widespread racism at Iona, there is little, if any, direct evidence of bias against him that led to any adverse employment action.
Plaintiff argues that Brennan was a racist because he purged all non-whites from Goal Club events in 2003. However, there is no evidence that Brennan's decision to bar all high-school students from Goal Club events was racially-motivated. First Brennan barred all high school students, of every race, from the Goal Club. Second, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that this decision was based on the NCAA rules themselves, the advice of the Department's compliance officer, Jamie Fogarty (who spoke to the NCAA about the matter), and the practices of other local colleges. While Holcomb believed the old policy was acceptable, his opinion is really of no moment: where there is a possible recruiting violation, only the NCAA's opinion is relevant.
Holcomb has submitted affidavits from a number of high school coaches, who assert that their players used to attend Goal Club events before Brennan instituted the new policy in 2003. See Affidavits of Robert Cimmino, Joseph Galgano, Robert Rizzo. But that proves nothing. It is undisputed that, for years, Iona permitted high school students to attend Goal Club events, changing its policy only after Fogarty (after consulting with the NCAA) and Brennan (after consulting with other schools) concluded that the school ought not permit high school players to attend. The high school coaches' affidavits are not evidence that the practice was permissible under NCAA rules — they are only evidence that Iona once had the practice, which is admitted. A trier of fact could as easily conclude that the affidavits evidence Iona's playing fast-and-loose with NCAA rules, which is a dangerous proposition for the school and for the young men who play there.
Additionally, after the new policy was put into effect, non-whites continued to attend Goal Club events in significant numbers. Ten out of thirteen Iona team members were African-American (Brenn. Aff. ¶ 129), as were a number of Goal Club members. Id. ¶ 120. None of them was barred from attending the functions.
Brennan's alleged decision to exclude Ruland's girlfriend and Holcomb's wife, of course, was not required by the NCAA recruiting rules. Since Brennan denies having made any such decision, the record does not reveal why Brennan took this step or whether these two women were the only spouses or "significant others" who were excluded from attendance at the Goal Club. However, even if I assume that Brennan barred only these two African-American women (along with high school players of all races) from Goal Club events, that fact would be insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the administration's decision — four months later — to reject Brennan's advice that Iona retain all its assistant coaches and to fire Holcomb instead.
Holcomb's second argument is that Petriccione, as a former Director of Athletics, secretly influenced Brennan's decision to draft recommendations that led to his termination. This argument is even more attenuated.
I will accept as fact, for purposes of this motion, that Petriccione was a bigot (no matter what his assistant thinks). Several witnesses have testified to remarks that would be inexcusable from any person, let alone a senior administrative officer at an institution of higher learning run by the Christian Brothers. For purposes of this motion, I must accept their evidence as true.
But that does not get plaintiff where he needs to be.
Rather, Holcomb must introduce evidence that Petriccione influenced the Board's decision to fire Holcomb and Chiles but retain O'Driscoll. The undisputed evidence not only does not admit of any such inference; it categorically rules the inference out. All the witnesses testified, without contradiction, that Pettricione opposed firing the assistant coaches. He took that position when Brennan presented his report to the vice presidents, and he never changed his position during the deliberations with the vice presidents and the Board of Trustees. There is absolutely no evidence that Petriccione engineered the "compromise" solution of firing two of the assistant coaches, or that he selected which two coaches would be fired.
Plaintiff attempts to link Petriccione to the decision to fire him by alleging that Petriccione was the secret author of Brennan's original report, which included as one possible outcome the firing of the assistant coaches. There are three problems with this argument. First, it is sheer speculation on plaintiff's part; there is not a shred of evidence to support this conclusion. Second, the report that Petriccione supposedly "engineered" did not suggest firing Holcomb and Chiles; it suggested firing all three assistant coaches — a completely race-neutral action — as one among several options for shaking up Iona's basketball program. Third, assuming arguendo that the racially-insensitive Petriccione persuaded Brennan to suggest firing all three assistants — the white assistant, the black assistant, and the white assistant who was married to a black woman — that was not the course the administration took. Plaintiff offers no evidence linking Petriccione to the ultimate decision.
Plaintiff's original theory of the case — that the recommendations Brennan made to Liguori were inherently racist — is without merit. If the administration's decision to retain only O'Driscoll — which, on this record, was made after Brennan's race-neutral recommendations were submitted to the Board — was the product of improper discriminatory motives, there is no evidence of that in the record. As the burden remains on plaintiff to provide evidence of pretext, plaintiff has not met his burden of proof on this record.
Conclusion
Defendant's motion for summary judgment of plaintiff's sole cause of action — his Title VII claim for wrongful termination — is granted. The Clerk of the Court is direct to close this case. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.