519 F. App'x 911
6th Cir.2013Background
- Heike was a CMU basketball player on a year-to-year athletic scholarship; renewal depended on performance and coach evaluation.
- After a coaching change to Sue Guevara, Heike received limited playing time and perceived biased treatment she attributed to race and gender.
- Guevara decided not to renew Heike’s scholarship for the 2008–09 year; Heike appealed through a hearing process outlined by CMU policy.
- Heike asserted nine claims including equal protection, substantive and procedural due process, and defamation; the district court dismissed most claims and the rest on summary judgment or for lack of damages.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that (a) class-of-one equal protection claims against a college coach are not cognizable, (b) substantive due process does not apply and procedural due process was satisfied, and (c) the defamation claim was absolutely privileged as invited during the appeals process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heike states an equal-protection claim. | Heike asserts race- or heterosexual-based discrimination. | Guevara authorized nondiscriminatory, discretionary coaching decisions. | No prima facie case; disengaged from protected-class discrimination; discrimination framework applies but not proven. |
| Whether Heike states a class-of-one equal-protection claim. | Race or sexuality dictated treatment under a class-of-one theory. | Engquist bars class-of-one challenges to discretionary personnel decisions by public officials. | Affirmed summary judgment; Engquist controls; class-of-one claim rejected. |
| Whether Heike states a substantive due process claim. | Not renewing scholarship shocks conscience. | Discretionary athletic decisions fall under equal protection; due process not violated. | Substantive due process claim failed; not actionable where governing rights are not fundamental. |
| Whether Heike states a procedural due process claim. | Hearing process was inadequate for depriving scholarship. | Pre-deprivation hearing and appeals complied with notice and opportunity to be heard. | Procedural due process satisfied; district court’s grant of summary judgment proper. |
| Whether Heike states a defamation claim. | Guevara’s statements harmed her; not privileged. | Heike consented to the appeals process; statements were privileged. | Defamation claim fails; statements were absolutely privileged as invited during the process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class-of-one theory not applicable to public employment decisions)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (recognition of class-of-one theory in some contexts (property))
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (reaffirmed limits on class-of-one claims in discretionary decisions)
- Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2000) (direct vs. indirect evidence in discrimination analysis)
- Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (McDonnell Douglas analysis for race discrimination)
- Sutherland v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 344 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2003) (background circumstances in prima facie case)
- Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one framework and equal protection)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting in discrimination)