Warmington v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, The, 455 F.Supp.3d 871

Background

Warmington was UMD’s head coach for women’s cross country and track & field (2009–2018) and resigned in Aug. 2018 after being placed on leave following student complaints and an EOAA investigation.
She alleges long‑standing resource disparities and adverse treatment of her women’s programs (budget cuts, travel/meal/facility deficiencies, lack of trainers/strength coach) and that she personally subsidized team needs.
She alleges overt sex/gender‑based comments and conduct by colleagues over several years and that she advocated for equal treatment of her female athletes under Title IX.
UMD’s investigatory letter concluded there was just cause for termination and offered Warmington a choice to resign (with a release) to avoid public disclosure; she resigned but did not sign a release.
Procedural posture: Board of Regents moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); plaintiff declined to amend; court granted dismissal with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title VII disparate treatment / constructive discharge	Warmington alleges she was constructively discharged under threat of imminent termination and that actions were motivated by sex and pretextual investigation	Univ. argues plaintiff failed to plausibly plead an inference that sex was a motivating factor; some workplace complaints are not materially adverse	Court: Constructive discharge plausibly pleaded as adverse action, but plaintiff failed to plead facts permitting a plausible inference that sex was a motivating factor; Title VII disparate‑treatment claim dismissed
Title VII hostile work environment	Warmington cites multiple sexist remarks and differential treatment to show a sexually hostile workplace	Univ. contends many allegations are not the sort that create an objectively severe or pervasive hostile environment and that plaintiff failed to plead employer notice	Court: Allegations are too scattered (no timeframe/frequency) and many are not probative; plaintiff failed to plausibly allege severe or pervasive harassment or employer knowledge; hostile‑work‑environment claim dismissed
Title IX (retaliation / discrimination / hostile work environment)	Warmington contends she was retaliated against and subjected to a hostile environment for advocating for her teams; relies on Jackson (Title IX retaliation)	Univ. argues Title IX damages claims (as an employee) are limited and that plaintiff failed to plead but‑for causation linking protected activity to the adverse action	Court: Plaintiff plausibly alleges protected activity and an adverse action, but fails to plead facts supporting a but‑for causal connection; Title IX claims dismissed
Equal Pay Act	Warmington alleges she was paid $5,000 less than the male coach until ~2016	Univ. argues EPA claim is time‑barred; EEOC investigation does not toll EPA statute of limitations	Court: EPA claim barred by the two‑year limitations period (no willfulness alleged and pay gap corrected in 2016); claim dismissed

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving disparate‑treatment employment discrimination).
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead plausible claim, not mere speculation).
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary, not pleading, standard; but prima facie elements inform plausibility).
Nassar v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (motive/but‑for causation principles in discrimination/retaliation contexts).
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX encompasses retaliation claims by persons who complain about sex discrimination).
Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2016) (prima facie elements are relevant to plausibility analysis in discrimination suits).
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile work environment requires harassment that is severe or pervasive).
Brousard‑Norcross v. Augustana Coll. Ass’n, 935 F.2d 974 (8th Cir. 1991) (EEOC filing does not toll the Equal Pay Act limitations period).