Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Shannon Miller UMD Lawsuit
Shannon Miller UMD Lawsuit
Case No.
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
vs.
For their Complaint against Defendant The Board of Regents of the University of
Minnesota, Plaintiffs Shannon Miller (Miller), Jen Banford (Banford), and Annette
Wiles (Wiles) state as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
nonprofit corporation located at 516 15th Avenue SE, in Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota.
2.
Jen Banford is a California resident and the former womens softball coach
and director of operations for the womens hockey program at the University of
Minnesota-Duluth.
4.
5.
employment practices were committed in this district, the employment records relevant to
such practice are maintained and administered in this district, Plaintiffs would have
worked in this district but for the alleged unlawful employment practices, and Defendant
Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota has its principal office in this district.
6.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1343(a) because this is an action to recover damages or secure equitable or
other relief under Acts of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., and further is a civil action
arising under federal law, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20
U.S.C. 1681, et seq.
7.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because those claims are so related to Plaintiffs civil
rights claims, over which this Court has original jurisdiction, that they form part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, and judicial
economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties named herein will result through this
Courts exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8.
of the University of Minnesotaincluding without limitation the governing body for the
University of Minnesota-Duluth (the University)and consists of twelve members
elected pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 137.0246.
2
9.
gay. Miller is the most successful womens hockey coach in NCAA history, as measured
by winning five NCAA Division I national championships and eleven Frozen Four
tournaments.
United States citizen on May 2, 2012 and holds dual Canadian/American citizenship.
12.
championships in 1982. Miller was also a member of the Canadian Hockey Feminine
Council and President of the Southern Alberta Womens Hockey League.
13.
Miller was the head coach for the Canadian national womens hockey team,
claiming the silver medal in ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan
and winning the gold medal at the 1997 International Ice Hockey Federation World
Womens Championships. Miller was also the assistant coach for Team Alberta at the
3
1991 Canada Winter Games, winning a gold medal, and an assistant coach for Team
Canada at the 1992 and 1994 Womens World Ice Hockey Championships, also winning
gold. She served as a coaching mentor for the Russian senior national team during its
preparation for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.
14.
before it hired Miller. Because of Millers international reputation, she was hired as the
program's first head coach on April 20, 1998. Over the next 16 years Miller devoted
herself to building the womens ice hockey program into the national powerhouse it is
today.
15.
to statistics compiled by U.S. College Hockey Online, during Millers 16 seasons at the
University, totaling 577 games, Miller amassed a winning percentage of .707. In doing
so, Miller reached her 250th and 300th career wins faster than any other head coach in
NCAA Division I womens hockey history. Miller currently has the fourth most wins
among active Division I womens hockey coaches, has the 11th highest winning
percentage among active coaches, and has finished only one season with a losing record.
She has trained 26 Olympians.
16.
For her successes, Miller was named the 2000 WCHA Coach of the Year,
the 2003 AHCA Coach of the Year, Millers entire coaching staff was collectively named
the American Association of College Coaches Womens Hockey Coaching Staff of the
Year in 2003, and in 2010 Miller was awarded the YWCAs Woman of Distinction
award celebrating womens leadership. Miller was also chair of the Ethics Committee for
4
U.S. Womens College Hockey and served two terms on the NCAA Division I
Championship Committee.
17.
At that December 9 meeting, Berlo and Black informed Miller that her
contractand the contracts of her entire coaching staff, consisting of three women, all of
whom are Canadian citizens and identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender
(GLBT)would not be renewed, effective June 30, 2015.
21.
Berlo and Black told Miller that the decision was strictly financial and
that the University simply could not afford to pay Millers salary.
22.
Berlo requested that Miller retire or resign. Miller is 51 years old. Miller
Over the course of her employment at the University, however, Miller had
previously taken pay cuts in order to assist the Universitys financial needs. For example,
in the spring of 2010, during a challenging fiscal time for the University, Miller was
asked to take a voluntary salary roll back along with other University employees.
Miller willingly did so.
24.
was willing and ready to take a pay cut, but was never approached or asked to take a pay
cut before the December 9 meeting.
25.
Prior to the December 9 meeting, Miller was not provided with any
indication that her contract would not be renewed, for financial reasons or otherwise. In
fact, as recently as July of 2014, both Berlo and Black had told Miller that they would
continue to discuss the renewal of her coaching contract and that the lines of
communication would be kept open.
26.
factors or other concerns were brought to Millers attention regarding her performance as
womens hockey coach, including without limitation Millers recruiting and recent record
against the University of Minnesota-Duluths rivals.
27.
On December 11, 2014, Berlo called Miller, again stating her options were
to retire or resign. Miller replied that she preferred to tell the truth, that MinnesotaDuluth was not renewing her contract and was wiping out the entire Womens Hockey
staff.
28.
29.
Despite the fact that Miller was the most successful coach at the University
not terminated and, on information and belief, his salary was not decreased.
32.
33.
Curt Wiese, had his contract extended during the time Miller was having the abovedescribed discussions with Berlo and Black.
34.
However, despite the Universitys alleged financial troubles, Wiese was not
terminated and, on information and belief, his salary was not decreased.
35.
director Bob Nielson and current director Berlo regarding the lack of funding and
services for the Womens Hockey team compared to the mens team, including:
a) Miller was told the recruiting budget for the mens team is
unlimited. The womens hockey recruiting budget for 2014-15 was
only $26,000.
b) The mens hockey team has a full-time director of operations. The
womens team only had a part-time director of operations.
c) The mens team had a full-time equipment manager and a full-time
strength coach who had minor duties with baseball. The womens
team only had one coach who served as both the equipment manager
and strength coach, as well as additional duties with basketball.
d) The mens hockey team received two meals on weekends. The
womens team only received one meal.
e) The mens team received funding to pay students for the May term
and summer school. The womens team was not provided any funds
for the May term or summer school.
37.
During her tenure as the head womens hockey coach, Miller regularly
womens hockey team in a disparate manner compared to the Universitys mens hockey
team. The womens hockey program has been given far less funding and support than the
mens hockey team, is discriminated against when making financial and budgetary
decisions, and the womens hockey program staff is treated differently than the mens
hockey program staff by University officials.
39.
in Athletics Data Analysis database, the operating expenses for the Universitys mens
ice hockey team exceeds those for the womens ice hockey team by $273,590, despite
only three more participants on the mens ice hockey team.
40.
Relating to the disparate funding issues, Miller repeatedly raised this issue
to the attention of the University. Miller also made many informal and formal complaints
to, among others, the Athletic Director, the Vice Chancellor, the Chancellor, and the
Human Resources director regarding discrimination and disparate treatment at the
University. For doing so, Miller was discriminated against and harassed, was subjected
to being called derogatory terms, received less support than male, straight, American, and
younger head coaches, and suffered hostility and anger from her co-workers and
supervisors.
41.
As one example, in the summer of 2006, Miller and Plaintiff Jen Banford
were humiliated when they were intentionally excluded from participating in an athletics
department and community golf tournament and were left standing in a parking lot.
42.
The following day, Miller spoke with Nielson, who refused to talk with her
follow-up or apology.
44.
On April 30, 2010, Miller began receiving harassing mail in her work mail
box. On several occasions from 2010 to 2011, Miller reported complaints to the Human
Resources department, including Human Resources Director Judith Karon. For example,
when Miller began receiving hate mail, such as several pieces of mail calling Miller a
dyke and suggesting that she "go" home, emails saying goodbye and the end, and
mail containing clippings from newspapers showing the disparity between attendance at
womens hockey games versus mens hockey games and with Millers salary handwritten
on them, she reported these despicable acts to Karon. No remedial action was taken by
Karon or the University.
45.
unknown individual from the department removed Millers mail from her department
mailbox. The Human Resources department told Miller that locks would be placed on
her mailbox. However, no locks were installed as promised. Subsequently, after Miller
complained to Karon, she was told that her mail would be delivered to DECC/Amsoil
Arena, where Millers office is located. However, the mail was not diverted as promised.
46.
By March 9, 2011, four harassing mail incidents against Miller had taken
place. Miller informed Human Resources of each of these incidents and also informed
the Athletic Director (Nielson), Vice Chancellor Bill Wade, and Chancellor Black. No
remedial action was taken by any of these individuals, or by the University.
47.
During Millers in-person visits with Karon from 2010 through 2011,
Miller shared her concerns regarding a male co-worker who referred to her as a dyke
10
and who told several co-workers that he would be the one to bring Miller down. Karon
and the University took no remedial action.
48.
Black, copying Karon, regarding the climate in the athletic department, its effect on
Miller, and the inaction by Athletic Director Neilson and Vice Chancellor Wade over
several years. After sending that complaint, Miller again met with Karon, who talked
about opening a potential investigation. Miller made very clear that she did not want a
formal investigation, stating that things would only get worse for her.
49.
Despite Millers clear wishes and stated desire to avoid further harassment
and discrimination, Karon and Human Resources initiated a formal investigation without
notifying Miller. Miller only found out about the investigation when she received a
phone call from an employee at the University of Minnesotas Twin Cities campus, and
later an email from the Department of Human Resources and Equal Opportunity at the
Twin Cities campus (OEO) with the investigation results.
50.
Director, Angie Nichols, concerning the intolerant climate in the athletic department,
Millers frequent complaints, and the inaction by the University.
Miller also
communicated that the environment at the University had, in fact, gotten worse.
51.
in the athletic department and strongly encouraged him to step in and create change.
52.
Kaler, President of the University of Minnesota, and Chancellor Black. The senators
11
questioned the Universitys reasons for terminating Miller and Banford and requested
further information. The letter noted that despite the Universitys apparent financial
reasons for the decision, the University retained the mens hockey coach who earns more
than Miller. The senators also reminded the University of its responsibility to uphold
state and federal laws that prohibit sex-based discrimination, warning that Title IX
violations could have serious consequences for the Minnesota higher education system.
53.
Katie Sieben, stating for the first time that other factors in addition to financial reasons
supported the decision to non-renew Millers coaching contract.
54.
decision not to extend Coach Millers contract had nothing to do with gender or sexual
orientation is false. On the contrary, Millers contract as the head coach of the womens
hockey team at the University was non-renewed because she is an openly gay woman,
from Canada, and/or is over 40 years old. Furthermore, any other reasons provided by
the University are mere pretext with the intended effect of obscuring the Universitys
discriminatory intent.
JEN BANFORD
55.
Jen Banford is a woman from Canada, is 34 years old, and identifies as gay.
Banford was also the highly accomplished head womens softball coach and served as the
director of operations for the University of Minnesota-Duluths womens hockey
program before the University unexpectedly non-renewed both of her contracts on
December 11, 2014.
12
56.
Banford was hired by the University in 2005 in a dual role as the womens
head softball coach and the director of womens hockey operations. She served as the
head softball coach for 10 years.
57.
overall record of 332-169 (a .639 winning percentage), guided her team to four NCAA II
Central Region berths and one Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference regular season
title, and was named the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference Coach of the Year in
2013 for her accomplishments.
59.
On December 11, 2014, only two days after the Universitys notice to
Miller that her coaching contract would not be renewed, Banford received an email from
the Universitys Assistant Athletic Director, Jay Finnerty, attaching a letter from Athletic
Director Berlo which provided notice that Banfords contracts as head softball coach and
part-time director of womens hockey operations would not be renewed, concluding
[t]hank you for your services and my best wishes on your endeavors.
60.
Neither Jay Finnerty, who was Banfords supervisor, nor Associate Athletic
Director Karen Stromme, nor Josh Berlo ever called Banford to notify her that she would
be receiving a non-renewal letter for either the head softball coach position or the director
of hockey operations position.
13
61.
Hockey, the media attention engulfing the University in the wake of its sudden and
suspicious termination of Shannon Miller, and Banfords outspoken support of Miller,
Banford became the target of significant hostility in the athletics department immediately
after Millers termination.
62.
The day after receiving her non-renewal letter, Banford called Associate
Athletic Director Karen Stromme and then called Berlo. During Banfords call with
Berlo, he did not raise the issue of the non-renewal letter until Banford broached the
subject. During that conversation, Berlo referred to Shannon Miller as one of Banfords
supervisors despite Miller never being Banfords supervisor.
63.
At no time during that conversation did Berlo inform Banford that she
would be retained as head womens softball coach, or even that she would be offered
another contract in that role.
64.
On December 16, 2014, while Banford was coaching at a camp for Team
Canada, Associate Athletic Director Stromme met with the players on the womens
softball team and informed them that Banford was let go only from her position as
director of hockey operations. This statement was false and caused embarrassment and
humiliation to Banford.
65.
Athletic Director Finnerty and Athletic Director Berlo regarding her future with the
University. Although Banford called Finnerty and Berlo personally, neither returned
Banfords call to set up a meeting or extend a contract offer.
14
66.
From the date when Banford was notified that she would be terminated,
December 11, 2014, until approximately January 16, 2015, no individual met with, or
offered to meet with Banford on behalf of the University in order to discuss her future
there, and no public statement was made that she would be retained as the head softball
coach.
68.
began treating Banford differentlyin a rude and threatening manner. This conduct
made it clear to Banford that the University did not want her to return.
69.
Resources, Linda Kinnear. During that conversation, Kinnear confirmed that according
to the paperwork, Banford would no longer remain with the University after June 14,
2015, in either her capacity as the softball head coach or the director of hockey
operations.
To that end, Kinnear informed Banford that Berlo had not filed any
15
70.
and womens sports issues, broke the national story regarding Banfords termination as
Minnesota-Duluths head softball coach. In that story, Berlo told the ESPNw reporter
that Banfords belief that she would not be retained as head softball coach was mistaken
and that the University was working to keep Banford as the head softball coach, that
Banford is our softball coach, and that she was only notified relative to the position of
womens hockey.
71.
letter to Banford, which plainly stated that Banfords appointment as the Director of
Hockey Operations/Head Softball Coach 38154, 12 months (A), Annual Renewal
Appointment, 100% will end on June 14, 2015.
University reversed course and decided to attempt to retain Banford after negative
publicity arising from Shannon Millers non-renewal.
72.
with Berlo in six weeks, and had not been presented with any offer for a renewal of her
coaching contract.
73.
On January 27, 2015, Berlo sent another letter to Banford, this time
providing Banfordwho had already been notified that her contract would not be
renewedwith an offer of appointment for a head softball coach position, but at a lower
salary.
16
74.
discrimination and harassment against Banford, and the disparate treatment of her
programs, on the basis of her sex, sexual orientation, and national origin.
75.
After the summer 2006 incident in which Banford and Miller were
excluded from a University golfing event, in the spring of 2007 Banford was again
excluded from a fundraising event held in Proctor, Minnesota. As the womens head
softball coach, Banford submitted her name and timely paid for the event, but was told
when she arrived that there was no place for her to sit.
76.
On April 30, 2010, Banford and Miller received harassing mail in their
respective mailboxes. Banford was the primary witness to this incident because she
would frequently gather Millers mail and transport it to Amsoil Arena as part of her
duties as director of hockey operations. Although Banford reported these incidents to
Athletic Director Nielson, Human Resources Director Karon, and Vice Chancellor Wade,
no action was taken to determine who placed the harassing mail in the mailboxes, nor
was any remedial action taken to prevent future incidents.
77.
by the softball team. In November of 2014, Assistant Athletic Director Jay Finnerty
informed Banford that he would not release equipment that the softball team purchased
with its own fundraising budget. Instead, Finnerty told Banfords assistant coach that he
was holding it hostage. Plaintiffs are not aware of any other program at the University,
other than womens softball and womens hockey, that had its equipment withheld to the
detriment of the student-athletes.
17
78.
Finnerty refused to release equipment to the womens hockey equipment manager and
refused to put in additional equipment orders.
confronted him several weeks after the University had received the equipment.
79.
Banford would also regularly raise complaints to Berlo that the womens
softball and hockey budgets do not reflect what has been promised to them. Berlos
response to these complaints was that it did not matter what pot the funding came from,
but Berlos belief is inaccurate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how
the Universitys budgets operate.
80.
Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act by Athletic Director Berlo and the Compliance
Coordinator, Abbey Strong, Banford was listed as a part-time softball coach.
81.
information and belief, is not gay, had 25% duties with the football team similar to
Banfords duties with the hockey team, but Reints was listed as a full-time coach rather
than a part-time coach.
82.
false statements, the hostility that Banford experienced within the athletics department
escalated significantly. A few examples include incidents of supervisory staff threats
against Banford such as I would punch her due to the ESPNw article; a failure of
supervisory staff to work with Banford to effectuate necessary policy regarding field use;
intentional undermining of Banford with her players; and the creation of an anonymous
18
Twitter account, followed by various mens hockey players, the mens hockey equipment
manager, and the official UMD hockey Twitter account run by a male Assistant Athletic
Director, which was used to defame Banford and Miller. Other incidents include outright
hostility and coldness from department staff.
83.
Banfords reimbursement money for submitted expense reports, as well as for her
assistant softball coach.
84.
athletic department against her regarding the usage of the Malosky Stadium field. Rather
than allow the coaches to work together regarding field usage, Finnerty insisted that he
would meet with coaches one-on-one. However, Finnerty, on information and belief,
informed the football, track, and soccer coaches during those one-on-one meetings that
Banford was the reason they could not use the fields for practice, despite Finnerty telling
Banford that the softball team would receive priority because it was in its championship
season and needed to schedule conference games. The field issue became a near-daily
problem due to the need to balance student-athletes attendance requirements, visiting
teams travel abilities, and umpires. Finnertys interference caused field issues to be
significantly more difficult in the 2014-2015 season than in prior years.
85.
Banford was also advised that softball would not be given priority by the
University. Although the softball team was in its championship season, it was made clear
19
to Banford that her student-athletes would need to miss classes for rescheduled home
games so that the football, womens soccer, and track teams did not have their practice
slots displaced.
86.
national origin.
Director Berlo made remarks such as Ive never seen so many damn Canadians, there
are too many Canadians around here, or similar derogatory remarks about Banford's and
Millers national origin.
87.
Berlo, Finnerty, and other athletic department administrators on the basis of her sex,
national origin, and sexual orientation, as well as in retaliation for her outspoken support
for equal access and funds for women athletes in the hockey and softball programs at the
University under Title IX.
88.
treatment of Banfordwhich represent only a portion of the hostility that she suffered
while employed at the UniversityBanford determined that she could not accept the
Universitys belated offer to retain her at a lower salary. Accordingly, by letter dated
February 9, 2015, Banford informed the University that in light of the discrimination
against her, the disparate treatment, and the hostile work environment as a result of
Berlos leadership and the publicity surrounding the Universitys termination of the entire
womens hockey staff, she would not accept the Universitys belated attempt to obscure
20
or rescind its earlier decision to terminate her. Banford agreed to remain as the head
softball coach through June 15, 2015, the end of her contract term.
89.
Just over two weeks after Banford informed the University that she could
not accept its offer based on the discriminatory treatment she received while employed
there, Chancellor Black claimed in his response letter to Senator Sieben regarding the
suspicious terminations of Miller and Banford, that the University always intended to
retain Coach Banford as Head Softball Coach. This statement is false.
90.
provide notices of non-renewal to a departing Head Coachs staff to allow a new Coach
to select her or his own staff. However, Black did not provide notices of non-renewal at
least two other full-time staff members who were hired by Shannon Miller, both of whom
are American citizens.
91.
contracts as its head softball coach and the director of hockey operations because she
supported Miller and the womens hockey program and/or because she is an openly gay,
Canadian woman, and advocated for gender equity in UMD athletics programs.
Furthermore, any other reasons provided by the University are mere pretext with the
intended effect of obscuring the Universitys discriminatory intent.
ANNETTE WILES
92.
Annette Wiles is a woman, is 46 years old, and identifies as gay. Wiles was
also the highly-successful and well-regarded head womens basketball coach for the
21
University of Minnesota-Duluth before she was forced to resign on June 1, 2015 due to
the hostile and discriminatory environment created by the University.
93.
basketball coach.
94.
Wiles was a stand-out basketball player before joining the coaching ranks.
A two-time All-American in college, Wiles led Fort Hays State University in Kansas to
the 1991 NAIA national championship and was named NAIA National Tournament MVP
for her role in that run. Wiles finished her playing career as the best player in Fort Hays
womens basketball history, and remains today the top scorer (by over 600 total points)
and rebounder (by 60 rebounds) in the history of the Fort Hays womens program. Wiles
is a member of the Tiger Sports Hall of Fame and the Rocky Mountain Athletic
Conference Hall of Fame.
95.
Minnesota-Duluth, Wiles was the head coach at Bethany College in Kansas for seven
years, and then served as the head coach at Fort Hays, her alma mater, for eight seasons.
Over that period, Wiles amassed an overall record of 300-141. Wiles winning percentage
of .680 ranked her 17th in winning percentage among active Division II womens
basketball coaches. She led Fort Hays to its first ever national tournament appearance
during the 2004-2005 season and Bethany College to seven consecutive 20-plus win
seasons. Wiles also had 25 Academic All-Americans in only seven years at Bethany
College.
22
96.
and won her 400th career game during the 2014-2015 season. She guided her team into
the postseason in each of the previous five seasons before her resignation and to the
NCAA Division II playoffs twice. Wiles also produced nine All-NSIC selections, one
NSIC Player of the Year, one NSIC Freshman of the Year, and two NSIC Defensive
Players of the Year. Furthermore, 33 players under Wiles have attained NSIC AllAcademic Team honors, and the team has collectively compiled a grade point average of
3.41 during that five-year stretch. During Wiles tenure, the womens basketball team
had a 100% graduation rate and had the highest team GPA of any sports team at
Minnesota-Duluth in six out of the seven years in which Wiles was the coach.
97.
Since accepting employment with the University in 2008, Wiles has been
subjected to discrimination and disparate treatment on the basis of her sexual orientation
and gender. In particular, Berlo and Abby Strong established a pattern of disrespect,
exclusion, and lack of civility in their interactions with Wiles, setting a tone that was
destructive of Wiles credibility with her players and her track record as a coach and a
leader and causing substantial injury to Wiles.
98.
Berlos hostility to Wiles began not long after he was hired as the
Universitys Athletic Director in 2013. Initially he was polite to Wiles, but suddenly
changed his demeanor after an incident in October of 2013.
23
100.
Wiles was the keynote speaker for the GLBT National Coming Out Day
luncheon on Minnesota-Duluths campus in October of 2013. This event is a wellattended and highly visible event on campus. Wiles planned to come out publicly as a
lesbian.
101.
Wiles informed Berlo of her plans and asked if he would like to attend the
event with her. When asked to attend, Berlo responded that he would be out of town
that day.
102.
However, on the day of the event, Wiles passed Berlos office and noticed
that he was sitting at his desk. Once again, Wiles invited Berlo to attend and informed
him that she had an extra seat at her table and that he was welcome to join her. This time,
Berlo responded that he was not available for that event.
103.
A few days after that event, Wiles was in the Athletic Department
workroom along with Berlo. At that time, Berlo asked Wiles, Did you give it a lot of
thought before you decided to speak? Wiles understood Berlos remark to mean he was
questioning Wiles wisdom in deciding to speak at the luncheon because it would
negatively affect her career.
104.
Following that event, Berlo and Assistant Athletic Director Strong began to
act in a cold and hostile manner towards Wiles. Although Wiles was well-liked and
generally well-regarded at Minnesota-Duluth before the event, after the event she began
to be shunned and excluded. Berlo ceased saying hello to Wiles or even acknowledging
her existence when they crossed paths at work. Similarly, Wiles interactions with
Strong became a nasty experience, leaving Wiles feeling unwelcome.
24
105.
By May of 2014, Wiles began to experience the same hostile and cold
treatment from other individuals in the athletics department. Despite many years of
successful relationships, Wiles began to be shunned, excluded, and disrespected. On
information and belief, this hostile culture formed as a reflection of Berlos and Strongs
conduct toward Wiles after October 2013.
106.
For nearly 12 months after the October 2013 incident, Berlo rarely spoke to
Wiles, even to say hello or respond to a hello from Wiles. The only time that Berlo
would acknowledge Wiles presence was when they were both in front of others.
108.
appearance that she simply did not show up. When Wiles would ask why she was
excluded, Berlo would respond that she was not needed.
109.
survey was provided to Wiles players, and the results of that survey were used to impact
her merit raise. Wiles was never provided a hard copy of the questions, or provided a
copy of the results in any form.
111.
Also relating to Wiles 2014 review, although her program met every
element of the standards for a greater raise, Wiles was given a 1% merit increase,
25
whereas on information and belief every male, straight, and/or under 40 University head
coach received a merit increase greater than 1%.
112.
In 2014 and 2015, exit interviews with Wiles senior players were
performed by Berlo and Associate Athletic Director Stromme rather than being
performed by Strong. Although Wiles senior players were very positive with her on the
evening prior to these interviews, they suddenly treated Wiles coldly and would not talk
with her after the interviews.
113.
evaluation. During that evaluation, the supervisor avoided eye contact with her and
emphasized only negatives from the previous season. When Wiles attempted to remind
him of positive aspects of the previous season, including the teams grade point average
(3.65, leading all team sports on campus), community volunteer events, fundraising
achievements, Wiles 100% graduation rate, and that she was nearing her 400th career
coaching win, Berlo stood up and began preparing to leave the office. Wiles stated that
she had a few questions that she wanted to discuss, but Berlo responded that he had a
more important meeting across campus and abruptly left the office.
Wiles 2014
During a budget meeting in the fall of 2014, Wiles was provided a print-out
experiences working at the University under other athletic directors and at other
universities.
115.
Regardless of whether Wiles could meet the budget provided to her in the
fall of 2014, the form she was ordered to sign required meeting the budget or it would be
a key factor in her performance evaluations.
116.
Since the signing of the 2014-2015 budget, and without any discussion,
Strong gave Wiles additional print-outs of the budget that reflected further decreases that
Wiles had to meet in order to avoid negative consequences in her performance
evaluations.
117.
other coaches, the University provided Wiles with a dealer car. However, Wiles and her
assistant were required to keep their dealer cars longer than male/straight/under 40
coaches, and they were required to personally pay for minor damage and excess mileage.
At Berlos direction, male, straight, and under 40 coaches were either given a new car
without comment, or the Minnesota-Duluth budget paid for the damage or excess
mileage, or the coach was allowed to use camp funds for that purpose.
118.
needs of the mens sports programs and favored male coaches. However, since the fall of
2013, no anonymous donors were found to assist with the expenses for the womens
basketball program, despite the repeated slashing of the womens basketball budget.
119.
In the fall of 2013 and early-2014, Wiles spoke with Strong, in the presence
of others, more than a dozen times concerning Berlos rude, disrespectful, and uncivilized
27
behavior toward Wiles in meetings, office spaces, parking lots, at sports events, and
many other locations. Despite these complaints, no remedial action or protection was
provided.
120.
In May of 2014, after meeting with Berlo and Strong regarding her
concerns about the surveys, merit pay issues, and exit interviews, Wiles met with Vice
Chancellor Lisa Erwin. During that meeting, Wiles shared her concerns regarding the
disparate treatment in the athletics department, discrimination on the basis of gender, and
concerns regarding perceived bigotry on the part of Berlo. Wiles also informed Erwin
that she felt Berlo was on a witch hunt in attempting to fire Wiles or cause her
resignation. Wiles raised the following concerns regarding the disparities in treatment
between the men's and women's basketball teams:
a) The women basketball coaches had to pay for the expenses for the
cars they were provided, and the male basketball coaches did not.
b) The mens basketball team was provided with funds to play 28
games, but the womens basketball team was provided with funds to
play only 26 games.
c) The mens basketball team was given new uniforms every season,
and the womens team used the same uniforms for four to five years.
d) The mens basketball team members received $500 each for Under
Armor apparel, and the womens basketball team did not.
e) The mens basketball teams locker room was five times larger than
the womens team.
28
121.
In the fall of 2014, Wiles and her assistant coach spoke with Mary
In the spring of 2015, Wiles again went to the campus Human Resources
office and met with Linda Kinnear to request her personnel file. When Kinnear asked
about Wiles concerns, Wiles stated that she was feeling alienated and retaliated against
by many employees in the athletics department. She spoke specifically about Berlos
outward discrimination and the daily hostility that Wiles experienced in the department.
Despite these complaints, no remedial action or protection was provided.
123.
In March 2015, Wiles filed a formal complaint with the University and met
discrimination that she experienced, she has gained 80 pounds over the past year-and-ahalf, has been admitted numerous times to the emergency room with chest pains, and has
been forced to seek medical attention for stress-related ailments.
29
125.
discriminated against Wiles because she is an openly gay woman who is over 40 years
old. Furthermore, any other reasons provided by the University to justify its actions are
mere pretext with the intended effect of obscuring the Universitys discriminatory intent.
ALL PLAINTIFFS
126.
and/or under 40 Division I or II coaches at the University have had their salaries reduced.
128.
and/or under 40 Division I or II coaches at the University have had their job duties
reduced.
129.
in Athletics Data Analysis database, the average institutional salary per head coach at the
University is $47,667 higher for mens teams than womens teams.
131.
The Equity in Athletics Data Analysis also shows that there is a wide
disparity in the Universitys treatment of assistant coaches for the womens teams, who
receive an annual average of $8,561 less than their counterparts on the Universitys
mens teams.
30
COUNT ONE
DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND/OR AGE
MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
MINN. STAT. 363A.01, et seq.
132.
for the purposes of the definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes 363A.03.
134.
sexual orientation, national origin, and/or age, from discriminating against a person with
respect to hiring, tenure, compensation, terms, upgrading, conditions, facilities, or
privileges of employment.
135.
employer, because of sex, sexual orientation, national origin, and/or age, to discharge an
employee.
136.
The University discharged Plaintiff Miller on the basis of her sex, sexual
The University discharged Plaintiff Banford on the basis of her sex, sexual
142.
committed with malice, reckless disregard, or deliberate disregard for Plaintiffs rights.
143.
The University presents no legitimate reason for this discrimination and its
orientation
discrimination,
national
origin
discrimination,
and/or
age
discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including but not limited to past and
future wage loss, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of
reputation, and other pain and suffering in an amount to be proved at trial.
COUNT TWO
REPRISAL
MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
MINN. STAT. 363A.01, et seq.
145.
for the purposes of the definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes 363A.03.
147.
Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, national origin, and/or age in
violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
148.
engag[ing] in any reprisal against any person because that person . . . opposed a practice
forbidden under this chapter. . . .
33
149.
retaliation and harassment, and further prohibits the University from retaliating by
departing from any customary employment practice.
150.
Plaintiffs Miller, Banford, and Wiles opposed practices forbidden under the
Furthermore,
were subject to reprisal, including being subjected to a wide range of departures from
customary employment practices including, but not limited to, further discrimination,
outright harassment, retaliation, refusal to take remedial measures regarding overt
discrimination against Plaintiffs in the workplace, hostility and refusal to treat Plaintiffs
with respect and kindness in the workplace, and exclusion of Plaintiffs from athletics
events.
152.
committed with malice, reckless disregard, or deliberate disregard for Plaintiffs rights.
153.
suffered damages, including but not limited to past and future wage loss, mental anguish,
emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, and other pain and
suffering in an amount to be proved at trial.
34
COUNT THREE
DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF SEX AND/OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964 AND 1991
42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.
154.
characteristics under Title VII, including Millers and Banfords national origin and sex,
and Wiles sex.
157.
35
162.
The University presents no legitimate reason for this discrimination, and its
sex.
orientation
discrimination,
national
origin
discrimination,
and/or
age
discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including but not limited to past and
future wage loss, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of
reputation, and other pain and suffering in an amount to be proved at trial.
36
COUNT FOUR
CREATION OF HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964 AND 1991
42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.
MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
MINN. STAT. 363A.01, et seq.
164.
for the purposes of the definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes 363A.03.
167.
and age, they were exposed to disadvantageous terms and conditions of employment to
which male athletics coaches at the University were not exposed.
169.
Plaintiffs were unable to discharge their duties as head coaches of the womens hockey,
softball, and basketball teams, respectively.
170.
affect a term, condition, or privilege of their respective employment, and indeed was so
37
intimidating, offensive, and hostile as to poison the work environment in the athletics
department at the University.
171.
The University was aware of the harassment of Miller, Banford, and Wiles,
including without limitation reports made by Plaintiffs to, among others, Black, Berlo,
Cameron, Erwin, Finnerty, Kinnear, Stromme, and Strong. Despite this knowledge, the
University failed to take remedial action.
172.
Moreover, the
Universitys conduct was patterned and pervasive in that its discriminatory conduct
against Plaintiffs happened with regular frequency, its discriminatory conduct was severe
and caused substantial harm to Plaintiffs, its discriminatory conduct was humiliating to
Plaintiffs, and its discriminatory conduct unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs work
performance.
173.
work environment, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including but not limited to past and
future wage loss, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of
reputation, and other pain and suffering in an amount to be proved at trial.
38
COUNT FIVE
UNLAWFUL RETAILIATION AND DISCRIMINATION
TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972
20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.
175.
assistance for its educational and athletic activities, and was therefore covered under Title
IX.
178.
39
180.
activity including good faith complaints of sex discrimination, opposing illegal practices
under Title IX, opposing discrimination through internal school communications and
voicing concerns to superiors at the educational institution.
181.
40
183.
loss of employment, medical expenses, general damages arising from mental distress, and
other economic losses including loss of compensation and benefits, which losses
continue.
COUNT SIX
VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK LAW
MINN. STAT. 181.66, et seq.
185.
for the purposes of the definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes 181.66.
187.
employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees at a rate less than the rate
the employer pays to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the
performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are
performed under similar working conditions. . . .
188.
and basketball coaches, respectivelywere paid wages at a rate less than the rate the
University paid to its male head mens hockey, baseball, and basketball coaches.
189.
The jobs held by Plaintiffs Miller, Banford, and Wiles at the University
required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and were performed under similar working
41
conditions, as the jobs held by the Universitys male head mens hockey, baseball, and
basketball coaches.
190.
seq., Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of the amount of their unpaid wages to which they
are entitled for a one year period preceding the commencement of this action, exemplary
damages, and recovery of their costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
COUNT SEVEN
VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT (EPA)
29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)
191.
employees on the basis of sex, including paying employees a lower rate than is paid to
employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires
equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions. . . .
194.
and basketball coaches, respectivelywere paid wages at a rate less than the rate the
University paid to its male head mens hockey, baseball, and basketball coaches.
195.
The jobs held by Plaintiffs Miller, Banford, and Wiles at the University
required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and were performed under similar working
42
conditions, as the jobs held by the Universitys male head mens hockey, baseball, and
basketball coaches.
196.
As a result of the Universitys violation of the Equal Pay Act, Plaintiffs are
for the purposes of the definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes 181.931.
199.
violations, suspected violations, and planned violations of the Minnesota Human Rights
Act, Title VII, and Title IX to the University, including without limitation to, among
others, Berlo, Cameron, Erwin, Finnerty, Kinnear, Stromme, and Strong.
43
201.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover back pay, compensatory damages, their costs,
disbursements, reasonable attorneys fees, and any injunctive and other equitable relief as
determined by the Court.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Miller, Banford, and Wiles respectfully request that this
Court:
A.
B.
C.
Grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be just and proper
under the circumstances.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
44
45