Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Former San Jose State University associate women’s volleyball coach Melissa Batie-Smoose sued the California State University Board of Trustees after the university suspended her and declined to renew her contract. She alleged that SJSU acted because she objected to the participation of a transgender woman on the women’s volleyball team, filed a Title IX complaint asserting discrimination against female athletes, and shared that complaint with the media.
The university moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Batie-Smoose asserted sex-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination statute, and Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education. At this stage the court accepted well-pleaded facts as true but required enough factual detail to make each claim plausible.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Noël Wise dismissed all four claims with leave to amend. The sex-discrimination claims did not plausibly allege that Batie-Smoose’s own sex caused her suspension or nonrenewal. Her allegations instead tied those decisions to her views, advocacy, and disclosure of student information. The court explained that Title VII requires facts supporting an inference that changing the employee’s sex would have changed the employer’s decision; disagreement over policies affecting transgender athletes did not itself supply that link.
The retaliation claims also fell short. Although opposing conduct reasonably believed to violate Title VII can be protected activity, the complaint did not sufficiently allege that Batie-Smoose communicated opposition to employment discrimination before the challenged actions. Her Title IX complaint focused on treatment of student athletes, and the pleaded facts supported the university’s stated confidentiality rationale for discipline after she released it publicly. The court likewise found no plausible Title IX retaliation claim because the complaint did not connect a protected report of sex discrimination to the adverse employment decisions with enough factual specificity.
The ruling did not decide whether the university’s actions were lawful on a developed record. Because this was only Batie-Smoose’s second amended pleading and her earlier amendment had been voluntary, the court allowed 21 days to try again with facts curing the identified defects.
Key Takeaways
- An employee challenging a policy involving sex or gender must still plead facts showing that the employer acted because of the employee’s sex to state a Title VII disparate-treatment claim.
- A complaint to an employer is protected retaliation activity only when it communicates opposition to conduct the employee reasonably believes violates the statute supporting the claim.
- Title IX complaints about students do not automatically become Title VII complaints about employment discrimination.
- A close sequence between protected activity and discipline may help show causation, but it does not erase a pleaded, nondiscriminatory explanation such as disclosure of confidential student information.
- Dismissal with leave to amend is not a merits judgment; the plaintiff may add facts within the court’s 21-day deadline.
Why It Matters
California employers and employment counsel should separate an employee’s policy position from the protected characteristic or protected activity on which a statutory claim depends. When discipline follows a public disclosure, contemporaneous documentation identifying the confidentiality rule, the information disclosed, and consistent enforcement may be especially important.
For employees and their lawyers, the order underscores the need to identify exactly what discriminatory practice was opposed, when that opposition was communicated, who knew about it, and how the adverse decision followed. High-profile subject matter cannot substitute for those basic pleading links.