Mary S. Phillips, formerly a softball coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High, isn’t giving up. In 2007, the school failed to renew her contract. Phillips believes the reasons were obvious: she is female and a lesbian. She has brought a complaint to the Middlesex Superior Court alleging job-discrimination. This case is an excellent example of how lawsuit funding can level the playing field for a plaintiff suing defendants with deep pockets.
Phillips, who was hired as an assistant coach in 2003, was open about her sexuality. With her partner she is raising five children, three of whom were students at Acton-Boxborough. In 2004 she was promoted to head coach of the softball team. Phillips believes that her recent dismissal is an indication of the school stance on not only her sexuality but also her gender.
The school sites hostile behavior, parental complaints and swearing among the reasons her contract was not renewed. Parents of some of the athletes under Phillips guidance have complained about her abilities as a coach. They cited lack of playing time and a poor win/loss record. Phillips later discussed these issues with the Acton-Boxborough athletic director, Steve Desy, claiming they were unfounded.
According to the suit brought by Phillips, she was praised for her performance during the 2007 season by Desy, stating he told her she has done ‘a great job.’
Shortly after the end of the 2007 school year, several parents brought new complaints to the school district. Notis notes that these complaints are not described in the lawsuit nor has he received official copies of the complaints. The lawsuit asserts that when questioned, Desy would not provide further details to Phillips regarding the complaints.
Phillips further alleges that, while discussing the new complaints, she was asked by Desy if she wished to keep her job. Apparently referencing her desire to have another child, Desy allegedly asserted that her ‘young family’ and desire to ‘get younger’ might be more important to Phillips than her job.
The lawsuit, brought by Notis on Phillips behalf, alleges gender discrimination as well. It details several cases where male colleagues in similar situations were not disciplined or not treated as harshly as Phillips, citing several cases in which complaints that male coaches swore or were abusive were left unanswered. Another male heterosexual coach was sent to anger management classes after losing his temper. He did not lose his job.
Phillips filed a suit with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination soon after her contract was not renewed. The commission found her claims baseless and cited several meetings between athletic director Desy and the softball team or their parents. Many of the team members expressed dissatisfaction with their experiences with Coach Phillips, specifically citing her use of foul language. As many as eight parents expressed plans to remove their daughters from the team if Phillips returned for the 2008 season.
The MCAD also notes a conversation between Desy and Phillips during which the athletic director brought forth examples of complaints and attempted to discuss changing the behavior. Desy cites the reason her contract was not renewed was her failure to work towards addressing the complaints and concerns made by both parents and students.
The state commission went on to note that Phillips sexuality was known, even before she received her job.
The school district stands behind the decision, stating that the do not tolerate ‘bad’ behavior from their coaches or staff. Superintendent Steven Mills couldn’t comment on the case, other to say it was without merit.
Phillips remains strong in her belief that she was fired because of her sexuality and not because of poor performance or questionable behavior. Her attorney, Notis, states that athletic director Desy appeared to radically change his position in regards to Phillips stating that the allegations brought against his client were categorically false.
This case is likely to spend many months or years in court proceedings before a settlement is reached. The plaintiff is without a job and financial resources during this time, so pre-settlement lawsuit funding can provide the cash needed by the plaintiff to give her the time needed to achieve a full and fair settlement.
Comments
Post has no comments.