Joanna Warmington v. Bd of Regents of the U of MN, 998 F.3d 789

Joanna Warmington resigned as head coach of women’s cross-country and track & field at the University of Minnesota Duluth in 2018 after the University threatened termination following an outside-law-firm investigation into complaints by student‑athletes (unwanted sexual comments, sexualized conduct, and comments on weight/diet).
She sued the Board of Regents under Title VII (sex discrimination and hostile work environment), Title IX, and the Equal Pay Act, alleging constructive termination and that misconduct allegations were a pretext for sex‑based termination.
Warmington alleged differential treatment: other coaches (and some women) allegedly were not disciplined for similar conduct; her teams suffered budget, resource, and scholarship disadvantages; and she was paid less than the men’s coach until 2016.
She alleged a pattern of sexualized comments/gestures and gendered insults by coaches and staff (including photographing her without consent and patronizing conduct by supervisors).
The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly plead Title VII discrimination and hostile‑work‑environment claims; the Equal Pay Act claim was dismissed as time‑barred, and Title IX retaliation was not preserved on appeal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Warmington plausibly pleaded sex discrimination/constructive discharge (Title VII)	University used misconduct allegations as pretext to terminate her because of her sex; alleged disparate treatment of coaches/teams and post‑Miller treatment of female coaches	Termination resulted from investigation and credible athlete complaints; alleged disparities do not show sex was motivating factor	Affirmed dismissal: pleadings do not plausibly infer sex‑based motive for termination
Whether Warmington plausibly pleaded hostile work environment (Title VII)	Repeated sexualized comments, gestures, photographing, and gendered insults over years created an abusive work environment	Alleged incidents were sporadic, often not directed at her, non‑physical, and insufficiently severe or pervasive	Affirmed dismissal: conduct not severe or pervasive enough to alter terms/conditions of employment
Procedural/other claims (Equal Pay Act; Title IX retaliation)	Asserted pay disparity and Title IX retaliation	District court dismissed EPA as time‑barred; Title IX retaliation dismissed and not argued on appeal	Not decided on merits by the court on appeal (EPA dismissal upheld below; Title IX issues not preserved)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly show entitlement to relief)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility and factual content required)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for indirect evidence discrimination claims)
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (no need to plead a full prima facie case at pleading stage)
Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. standard applying severity/pervasiveness for hostile‑work‑environment dismissal)
In re Pre‑Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 860 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. en banc standard of review for dismissal)
Wilson v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 850 F.3d 368 (pleading/plausibility in discrimination context)
Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc., 565 F.3d 464 (complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to provide grounds for the claim)