BT v. Smith-Green Cmty. Sch. Corp.

1

B.T., Plaintiff, v. SMITH-GREEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:23-CV-325-HAB

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

October 26, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE

Sayre's law, named after twentieth century political scientist and Columbia University professor Wallace Stanley Sayre, posits that: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.” KEYES, RALPH, THE QUOTE VERIFIER: WHO SAID WHAT, WHERE, AND WHEN 1 (St. Martin's Press 2007). The best-known invocation of Sayre's law is generally credited to the late Henry Kissinger, who was said to have quipped: “Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” Id.

If only Kissinger had lived to see the modern state of youth sports. B.T., then a sophomore at Churubusco High School (“CHS”), was benched near the end of the 2022-2023 girls' varsity basketball season. This was either because B.T., encouraged by her mother, was a poor sport who sought to undermine the head coach or because Defendants were retaliating against her in violation of Title IX. B.T.'s response to the benching was to file this federal lawsuit.

Not content to simply let the suit play out, B.T. seeks a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 13). She asks this Court to issue an injunction “(1) prohibiting Defendants from retaliating against B.T.; (2) declaring that B.T. is a member of the CHS Women's Basketball team; and (3) allowing B.T to participate in basketball games as she did before” she was benched in January 2023. (ECF No. 14 at 17). The request for a preliminary injunction is now fully briefed (ECF Nos. 14, 23 25)^[1]and is ripe for ruling.

I. Factual Background

B.T. was a sophomore at CHS and a guard on the CHS girls' basketball team during the 2022-2023 school year. The problems started in January 2023. At a practice on the fifth, B.T. touched the team's head coach, David Goodwell (“Goodwell”), on the hip or the side of his buttocks with her hand. Goodwell found the contact “inappropriate, unwelcomed, and offensive,” so he reported it to the school's athletic director, Nathan Wright (“Wright”). Wright, Goodwell, and B.T. met the next day to discuss the incident. Wright explained to B.T. that her conduct was inappropriate, and B.T. apologized.

B.T. did not start that night's game as punishment but played in all four quarters. Following the game, B.T.'s mother, D.T.^[2], texted the parents of other players stating, “we are 3-11. Another senseless loss. I am so done with this manic, irrational coaching. What a colossal mistake to move her here.”

The next day, January 7, D.T. sent a long email to Wright and Terrence Roe (“Roe”), principal of CHS. B.T. describes the email as “regarding multiple instances of sexually inappropriate and/or sexual harassment like-behavior with women student-athletes by Goodwell and by a female assistant.” (ECF No. 14 at 9). The Court has reviewed the email (ECF No. 24-2) and cannot agree with that description. In the letter, D.T. complains:

- Goodwell and a player travelled together to watch basketball games. This bothered D.T. because, “[t]his particular girl comes from a really messed up home life,” and says, “stupid stuff to other kids regularly.” D.T. believed this was a “scandal in the making for the school.”

- Goodwell tried to “pit the players against each other” by making upperclassmen responsible for disciplining underclassmen.

- An assistant coach, “Coach Brooke,” undermined Goodwell to the players.

- Goodwell favored some players over others.

The real reason for the email seems to be to complain about the January 5 practice incident. D.T. spends paragraphs disputing Goodwell's version of the incident, closing by saying, “I am livid about this. I am not going to let this go. I will absolutely clear [B.T.'s] name from this allegation.” (ECF No. 24-2 at 3). D.T. made several demands at the close of the email, including a “review of the truthfulness” of Goodwell's accusation against B.T., a public apology from Goodwell to B.T., for B.T. to finish the season, a review of “Goodwell's conduct with any other player outside of school events,” and a parent meeting.

The email was blocked by CHS' spam filter but was eventually delivered on January 11. Wright, Roe, and B.T. met the same day to discuss the allegations. During the meeting, B.T. showed Wright and Roe a video which she has alternatively described as “a player simulating a sex act” with Goodwell (ECF No. 15 at 35) and “the rubbing of a player's genitals” on Goodwell's back (ECF No. 26 at 3). B.T.'s characterization is an embellishment at best and a lie at worst. What the video showed was Goodwell doing a pushup while a player sat on his back. Wright would later be given a photo of B.T. doing exactly the same thing.

The last game B.T. played was a January 12 victory over Hamilton High School. After that game, Goodwell decided to bench B.T. for the rest of the season. He claims that the decision was made because “B.T. engaged in conduct that was detrimental to the team, which included spreading rumors about [Goodwell's] future as a coach.” (ECF No. 24-3 at 2). Goodwell also points to an incident during a January 24 loss to South Adams High School where B.T. took off her shoes on the bench and cheered for the other team as a basis for her ongoing benching.

B.T. has a different explanation for her benching. She claims that, on January 20, she asked Goodwell why she was not playing. He responded that he would not play B.T. because “she got him in trouble.”

In any event, B.T. did not play again during the 2022-2023 season, including CHS' sectional loss to Westview High School. In fact, B.T. was not even on the roster for the sectional game. This incensed D.T. After learning of B.T.'s omission, D.T. wrote an email to Wright demanding “a full sports release of [B.T.] so that she cannot be restricted from playing sports elsewhere next year.” In the same email, D.T. promised to “sue everyone involved in this.” Later that night, D.T. sent a text message to players, parents, and coaches of the CHS girls' basketball team calling Goodwell a “spin[e]less POS”-or piece of shit-because he did not tell B.T. “to her face” that she would not be on the sectional roster.

CHS finished the season with a 5-18 record, including 2-9 in conference. B.T. finished the season averaging 5.9 points per game on 29% shooting, 3.5 rebounds, 2.5 assists (with a negative assist-to-turnover ratio), 1.4 steals, and 0.1 blocks per game.^[3]

B.T. continued to be disciplined after the season finished. B.T. was not given the award for having the most assists on the team despite leading the team in assists. Goodwell states that this snub was because of B.T.'s detrimental conduct. B.T. was removed from the team's text chat. Defendants claim that this was because of D.T.'s inappropriate text, but B.T. notes that D.T.'s text was sent to a players, parents, and coached text chat, but she was removed from a coaches and players text chat. B.T. was also excluded from summer team activities, her number was given to another player, and her name was omitted from the 2023-2024 team t-shirt.

Some of these issues have been resolved. B.T. has her number back, has been reinstated to the team text chat, and has been instructed to obtain her basketball gear from an assistant coach. Sadly, the t-shirt remains unchanged.

II. Legal Discussion

A. Preliminary Injunction Standard

A preliminary injunction is a “very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021). To obtain a preliminary injunction, B.T. must show that (1) she will suffer irreparable harm before the final resolution of her claims; (2) available remedies at law are inadequate; and (3) she has a likelihood of success on the merits. See BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 323-24 (7th Cir. 2015). If the moving party makes this showing, the court then “weighs the competing harms to the parties if an injunction is granted or denied,” “considers the public interest,” and employs a “sliding-scale analysis” (“the greater the likelihood of success on the merits, the less heavily the balance of harms must tip in the moving party's favor”). Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). A preliminary injunction ordering a defendant to take an affirmative act rather than merely refrain from specific conduct is “cautiously viewed and sparingly issued.” Graham v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

B. B.T. has not Established a Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Defendants seemingly concede the first two threshold requirements for a preliminary injunction, focusing their argument on B.T.'s likelihood of success on the merits. To show a likelihood of success on the merits, B.T. must make a “strong showing that she is likely to succeed on the merits” of her claim; a mere “possibility of success is not enough” to warrant emergency relief. Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 762 (7th Cir. 2020). This showing “does not mean proof by a preponderance,” but requires B.T. to provide facts and legal theories supporting “the key elements of [her] case.” Id. at 763.

B.T.'s case is one for retaliation under Title IX. Title IX prohibits educational institutions from retaliating against people who speak out against sexual harassment. See e.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 183 (2005). To establish a claim for retaliation under Title IX, B.T. must allege that (1) she engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) the school took a...