Batson Suit

Case 2:19-cv-00543-SPC-MRM Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 26 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ROBERT J. BATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY, INC.
Defendant.
__________________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF-JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff, Robert J. Batson, sues Defendant, Ave Maria, and as grounds shows:
Introduction
1. This is a discrimination/retaliation and libel action by Robert J. Batson, a 73-year-old
male college women's basketball coach and retired Certified Public Accountant,
whose employer had been seeking to get rid of him for more than 3 years, and whom
it paid less than its similarly-situated younger male coaches of its male sports
programs who performed work of like, kind and character, but whom they kept on to
coach the women's team until a younger female replacement could be found, and
whom it fired without cause on Thursday May 24, 2018, four business days after
simultaneously awarding him a surprise poor performance review and a Performance
Improvement Plan (“PIP”)—both unfounded. Ave Maria took these adverse actions
after, One, he brought to his superiors’ attention that as the oldest coach he was being
paid substantially less than his male peers who coached mens’ sports programs, in
contravention of law, which pay differential was acknowledged and defended by the
1
employer on various grounds including, but not limited to, his age, that he coached a
women’s program and that he did not need the money; Two, in early 2016 he reported
what he reasonably perceived was a sexual harassment scenario-that an Assistant
Athletic Director/Sports Information Director and Golf Coach was dating one of his
student players-and was subjected to ongoing reprisal thereafter; and, Then, called
into his immediate supervisor John Lamanna’s office on Friday May 18, 2018 under
false pretenses, where Mr. Lamanna awarded him a surprise formal written annual
evaluation with an overall net rating of 1.84 out of a total of 5 points, and placed Mr.
Batson on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). Mr. Batson’s performance rating
included, inexplicably, a “1” in “Ethics and Honesty” out of a total of 5 points and a
statement that he supposedly “does not integrate the Catholic faith into his team”, with
no explanation or example-a pretext for discrimination, and in contravention of the libel
law. Mr. Batson was then terminated and told to leave four business days later, on
May 24, 2018, with said termination pronounced effective June 30, 2018. Plaintiff sues
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et. seq.
(“ADEA”); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et.
seq. (“Title VII”); the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760 Fla. Stat. (“FCRA”),
and the common laws of the State of Florida. He sues for all available legal and
equitable relief, including, but not limited to, back wages, liquidated damages,
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses.
2
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. Subject matter jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and
1337 (amount in controversy), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). The Court has
supplemental jurisdiction to determine the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b))2), because the cause of action accrued here, and the defendant is subject
to personal jurisdiction.
Parties
4. Plaintiff, a 73-year-old male, and older than age forty (DOB: 04/19/46), is a natural
person, who, at the time of the filing of this complaint and for ten years was
employed by the defendants as the women’s basketball coach. He is protected by
the ADEA, Title VII and the FCRA because:
a. He is male;
b. He was 72 years old at the time of termination and older than age forty;
c. He was subjected to disparate pay based on his age, sex and because he
opposed sex discrimination;
d. He was regarded differently and less favorably than male coaches of men’s
sports programs based on his age, sex and for opposing sex discrimination;
e. But for his age, he would not have been subjected to a series of adverse
employment effects;
3
f. He complained about what he reasonably perceived to be discrimination;
g. He was replaced by a younger female; and
h. He filed a charge of discrimination and an amended charge of discrimination
and participated in proceedings related to those charges.
5. The defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff by indicating in writing that the Plaintiff
was unethical, dishonest and failed to integrate the Catholic faith into his [women’s
basketball] team.
6. Ave Maria University, Inc. (hereinafter “Ave Maria”) is a private Catholic university
and Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Ave Maria, Florida.
During the period covered by this action, it set policies that governed plaintiff’s
employment and issued statements of earnings to pay wages to him.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
7. Plaintiff, on or about July 6, 2018, filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging a pattern
and practice and continuing violation of age discrimination, religious discrimination
and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), dual
filed with the Florida Commission of Human Relations (“FCRA”).
8. Plaintiff, on or about April 12, 2019, filed an Amended Charge of Discrimination
alleging a pattern and practice of sex discrimination in addition to age discrimination,
religious discrimination and retaliation, with the EEOC, dual-filed with the FCRA.
9. The plaintiff has received a dismissal and “Notice of Right to Sue” from the EEOC
date stamped as issued June 18, 2019, attached.
10. More than 180 days have passed since the filing of the July 2018 without the Florida
Commission on Human Relations either conciliating plaintiff’s claims of
4
discrimination and retaliation under the FCRA or making a finding of no-cause
against him, giving plaintiff the right to bring a civil action on those claims.
11. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have occurred, been performed
or have been waived.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12. In 2008, Ave Maria hired Mr. Batson as the women’s basketball coach.
13. Mr. Batson is well-qualified to serve as the women’s basketball coach.
14. Ave Maria’s initial employment offer to Mr. Batson sought to pay him substantially
less than the younger male coach of the Ave Maria men’s basketball team.
15. Upon Ave Maria extending Mr. Batson an employment offer, Mr. Batson opposed
that Ave Maria paid a younger male coach of the men’s basketball team more than
they were offering to pay him as the women’s basketball coach.
16. Ave Maria asserted the pretextual rationale for the pay disparity that the women’s
basketball coach was a part time position.
17. Mr. Batson declined to accept employment with Ave Maria until they increased their
initial offer and paid Mr. Batson according to a full-time position.
18. Mr. Batson’s work performance was exemplary.
19. The women’s basketball program was extremely successful under Mr. Batson’s
leadership.
20. Mr. Batson was the most successful coach in the history of the school.
21. The retention rate and graduation rate for Mr. Batson’s players during his tenure
was exemplary. They excelled in the classroom.
5
22. Mr. Batson’s women’s basketball team is the only team at Ave Maria that has a
winning record.
23. Mr. Batson maintained his appointed budget to recruit players.
24. Despite these accomplishments, Ave Maria continued to pay Mr. Batson less than
their younger male athletic coaches of men’s sports teams due to his age, sex and
because he opposed sex discrimination concerning his female student athletes.
25. Ave Maria provided Mr. Batson pay records in the course of his duties that
definitively reflected this pay disparity.
26. Mr. Batson opposed the pay disparity on an on-going basis up to and through his
separation. Ave Maria took no remedial action. Ave Maria hired several younger
male coaches of men’s sports programs and paid them more than Mr. Batson during
Mr. Batson’s ten-year tenure.
27. Ave Maria asserted various pretextual reasons for the pay disparity including but not
limited to Mr. Batson’s age, previous career, retirement status, because he coached
a women’s program and because he did not need the money.
28. Ultimately, Ave Maria agents told Mr. Batson they would never increase his pay in a
thinly veiled campaign to compel him to quit.
29. On or about three years’ ago, Ave Maria employed three individuals all of whom are
significantly younger than Mr. Batson and placed them above Mr. Batson in the
command chain-John Lamanna, John King and Kim King.
30. Mr. Batson’s most recent immediate supervisor was John Lamanna, initially men’s
basketball coach and then also athletic director.
6
31. Notwithstanding his seniority and advanced experience, Ave Maria did not offer Mr.
Batson either role extended to Mr. Lamanna-men’s basketball coach or athletic
director.
32. Mr. Batson’s qualifications and experience exceed those of Mr. Lamanna.
33. Mr. Lamanna reported to Kim King, Vice President, Student Affairs.
34. Scott King is the Director of Mission Outreach. Scott King and Kim King are
husband and wife.
35. James Towey is Ave Maria’s President.
36. Mr. Lamanna demonstrated little support or regard for Mr. Batson as women’s
basketball coach. Mr. Lamanna failed to communicate with Mr. Batson effectively
about business matters, marginalized him and flatly refused to endorse any pay
increase or budget increase for him.
37. Ave Maria’s workplace mistreatment of Mr. Batson escalated in 2016, culminating in
his firing in 2018, after he reported an Assistant Athletic Director and Coach was
dating one of his student players.
38. Ave Maria told Mr. Batson they were aware of the relationship, did not tell him, and
did not take any remedial action, stating the student player would be graduating
soon.
39. Mr. Batson was stunned, as Ave Maria staunchly defended its conservative Catholic
culture and related student and faculty policies but ignored the gravity of what he
reasonably perceived was a quid pro quo sexual harassment issue.
40. Thereafter, Ave Maria singled Mr. Batson out for discipline and held him to a
different and higher standard than the younger male coaches of male sports
7
programs, discriminating against him with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions and privileges of employment based upon sex and age.
41. Mr. Lamanna abruptly required Mr. Batson to recruit, coach and operate a junior
varsity women’s basketball team after his varsity women’s team schedule with travel
was already set, where there was no practice time available in the gym due to the
varsity men’s and women’s set training schedules, and without increasing his pay,
budget (not even for uniforms) nor initially permitting him to hire an assistant.
42. Despite the hardship and lack of funding or increased compensation, Mr. Batson
assembled the junior varsity team.
43. Mr. Batson’s superiors also faulted Mr. Batson for alleged problems ranging from
the petty to the significant without placing younger male coaches of men’s programs
under the same scrutiny.
44. Ave Maria criticized Mr. Batson for his team not having already completed “ALPHA”
in 2017, a mission program sponsored by Mr. King, when Mr. King himself said it
was too late in the year to start. Younger male coaches of men’s programs were not
mandated to have their players attend Alpha or faulted for failing to have participated
in the program with expediency.
45. In 2018, Mr. Batson’s superiors perpetrated on President Towey the belief Mr.
Batson intentionally slighted him on Senior Night when they knew the converse was
true. These superiors required Mr. Batson to apologize to President Towey. Mr.
Batson acquiesced, and Towey rebuked him in writing.
46. The true facts were Mr. Batson had no idea President Towey was attending Senior
Night and accelerated the evening’s schedule, with permission, by a few minutes to
8
accommodate warmups for the athletes. The same Assistant Athletic Director and
Coach that Mr. Batson reported over dating one of his players granted Mr. Batson
permission to alter the schedule. He never told Mr. Batson President Towey was
expected, and he never told Mr. Batson’s superiors that he granted permission to
accelerate that evening’s schedule.
47. Mr. Batson was required to attend “Mass in the grass” with the women’s basketball
team and was told it was mandatory for athletes-yet the men’s teams were not in
attendance.
48. Mr. Batson was faulted for his female Assistant Coach, by happenstance, stopping
by to bid farewell for the season to the women’s team the same day Mr. King was
speaking to the team, and also faulted Mr. Batson for the female Assistant Coach’s
remarks in defense of the female players. Mr. Batson was not present and had no
control over the Assistant’s presence or her commentary there.
49. On or about April 26, 2018, Mr. King told Mr. Batson that his women’s basketball
team should not return to Ave Maria. Mr. King described the women as “unhappy”,
saying he concluded this because the women did not wave at him on campus or
know him. In a subsequent conversation with Mr. Batson on or about the same
date, Mr. King said he spoke to the women’s basketball team a second time and was
convinced they should leave Ave Maria.
50. Mr. Batson advocated for the women’s team, and opposed Mr. King’s remarks on
behalf of his female players as sexist and discriminatory. Mr. Batson asked whether
by extension Mr. King did not think he should be there either. Mr. King nodded
9
51. Mr. Batson, a male coach of Ave Maria’s women’s basketball team, was being paid
less than the male head coach of men’s basketball team due to his age and sex, and
where Mr. Batson was opposing discrimination against his female players.
52. Ave Maria conveyed to Mr. Batson through what they said, and through what
remained unsaid, that they do not value the women’s basketball team and they
subjected him to reprisal for opposing the same.
53. Mr. Lamanna surprised Mr. Batson with his third annual evaluation on Friday May
18, 2018 after summoning him to a meeting under false pretenses.
54. Mr. Lamanna read the evaluation aloud to Mr. Batson.
55. Mr. Lamanna had already signed the evaluation, along with Kim King.
56. Mr. Lamanna awarded Mr. Batson an overall net rating of 1.84 out of a total of 5
points, without warning, cause or provocation.
57. Mr. Lamanna also placed Mr. Batson on a “Professional Development Plan”, a form
of discipline.
58. Mr. Lamanna awarded Mr. Batson a rating of “1” in “Ethics and Honesty” out of a
total of 5 points. He did not expound upon what he alleged to be unethical, nor did
he supply any purported example.
59. Mr. Lamanna also charged verbally and in the written review that Mr. Batson
supposedly “does not integrate the Catholic faith into his team”- but again, provided
no example or explanation-not only a pretext for discriminatory and retaliatory
conduct, but a religious-based slur.
60. Mr. Batson had not committed any serious policy infraction or suffered any
significant incident concerning his team members prior to the poor review.
10
61. Mr. Lamanna provided no explanation concerning why he had not met with Mr.
Batson about any of these matters or called them to Mr. Batson’s attention prior to
the review.
62. Mr. Batson was embarrassed and offended.
63. Mr. Batson reasonably concluded the poor review was calculated to compel him to
quit. He did not quit.
64. Mr. Batson told Mr. Lamanna he did not accept the evaluation or Professional
Development Program, which was vague, non-specific, discriminatory, defamatory
and as mentioned above, a form of discipline.
65. The evaluation and performance plan contained untrue statements that Mr. Batson
was unethical and dishonest, and that he failed to integrate the Catholic faith into his
team.
66. The evaluation and performance plan were circulated to a very wide audience
outside the “need to know” basis and incorporated into Mr. Batson’s personnel
record at Ave Maria.
67. The spoken comments by Mr. Batson’s superior John Lamanna and the written
comments by Mr. Lamanna and Mr. Batson’s other superiors at Ave Maria are
inflammatory and defamatory as they refer to Mr. Batson as dishonest, unethical and
failing to integrate his Catholic faith into his team.
68. At the time Mr. Lamanna and Mr. Batson’s other superiors made these remarks
verbally and in writing, they knew that these statements were not true.
69. Mr. Lamanna and Mr. Batson’s other superiors at Ave Maria made these
statements, verbally and in writing, with malice.
11
70. Mr. Batson left the May 18, 2018 meeting employed. Thursday May 24, 2018 of
that same week, Mr. Lamanna alerted Mr. Batson to an e-mail stating Ave Maria
would not retain Mr. Batson past June 30, 2018. Mr. Batson continued to work
through mid-week of the first week of June 2018.
71. On May 30, 2018, Human Resources advised Mr. Batson he would not receive
severance pay or undergo an exit interview because he was “terminated.”
72. On June 1, 2018, Mr. Batson reported to work and his work E-mail account was
locked, precluding his ability to conduct Ave Maria business. He directed an E-mail
to John Lamanna inquiring into this. Mr. Lamanna did not reply.
73. Human Resources then responded the following Monday June 4, 2018, stating that
John Lamanna requested that the Internet Technology (IT) staff terminate Mr.
Batson’s access to his Ave Maria E-mail without notifying Mr. Batson, and that Mr.
Batson was “not required to work any longer for Ave Maria University.”
74. Ave Maria paid Mr. Batson for the month of June 2018.
75. Post firing, members of the women’s basketball team directed a letter to President
Towey supporting Mr. Batson and requesting that Towey retain him as head coach,
to no avail.
76. Mr. Towey responded in writing, in part, that he did not know Mr. Batson. He did
not speak to Mr. Batson concerning this incident.
77. Mr. Batson was replaced in July or August 2018 by a significantly younger female
employee (approximately 29-years-old) whose qualifications and experience are
inferior to those of Mr. Batson.
78. Mr. Batson has not been able to secure similar employment in his field, to date.
12
79. Mr. Batson reasonably concludes Ave Maria is providing him with an unfavorable
reference.
80. Mr. Batson has heard rumors repeated in coaching circles that Ave Maria reputedly
fired him for not being “Catholic enough.”
81. Mr. Batson’s rights have been violated and he has been damaged.
82. Ave Maria treated Mr. Batson, a long time highly performing employee
disadvantageously under circumstances which gave rise to an inference of unlawful
discrimination, i.e., it removed him from his position on May 24, 2018, replacing him
with a 29-year-old female.
83. Mr. Batson’s age and sex, including opposition-clause retaliation for advocating for
his female players, was the reason that prompted Ave Maria to replace Mr. Batson in
his women’s basketball coach assignment with a substantially younger female
employee.
84. Ave Maria, through the actions alleged above, affected Mr. Batson in a “term,
condition or privilege” of his employment as envisioned by Title VII and the FCRA.
85. Ave Maria’s treatment of Mr. Batson was based on his:
a. Age;
b. Sex;
c. Protected activity.
86. The violation of Mr. Batson’s federally and statutorily protected right to be free of
illegal discrimination constitutes irreparable harm for which Mr. Batson has no
adequate remedy at law entitling Mr. Batson to injunctive relief.
Count I: Title VII Sex Discrimination
13
87. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations of 1-4(a); 4(c)-4(d); 4(g); 6-17;
19-28; 30; 33-57; 60-64; 70-78; and 81-86.
88. Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 provides, in pertinent part:
89. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or

otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual’s . . .sex. . .; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants

for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive
any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such
individual’s. . .sex. . .
90. Ave Maria’s actions were intentionally and purposefully taken in regard to Mr.
Batson on account of his sex in violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
91. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result of Ave Maria’s actions, Mr.
Batson has suffered emotional distress, embarrassment, inconvenience, and other
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and will continue to suffer additional losses
in the future.
92. The discrimination against Mr. Batson, of which Ave Maria’s higher management
was aware and which was ratified, was in such reckless disregard of Mr. Batson’s
statutory rights against discrimination as to entitle Mr. Batson to an award of punitive
damages against Ave Maria to punish them and to dissuade such conduct in the
future.
93. The violation of Mr. Batson’s federally and statutorily protected right to be free of
unlawful discrimination constitutes irreparable harm for which Mr. Batson has no
adequate remedy at law entitling Mr. Batson to injunctive relief.
14
94. Mr. Batson is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Robert Batson, prays that this court will:
One, issue a declaratory judgement that Ave Maria’s practices toward Mr. Batson
violated his rights against discrimination under Title VII;
Two, enjoin defendants and their agents from continuing to violate Mr. Batson’s
statutory rights under Title VII and to make Mr. Batson whole through
reinstatement, back pay and restoration of seniority and benefits, or, if that is not
practical, through an award of front pay;
Three, enter a judgment for Mr. Batson and against Ave Maria or compensatory
and punitive damages;
Four, grant Mr. Batson his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §2000e-5(k); and
Five, grant Mr. Batson such other and further relief as the circumstances and law
provide.
Count II: Title VII Retaliation
95. Mr. Batson realleges and incorporates the allegations of 1-4(a); 4(d); 4(f); 4(h); 6-
13; 15-23; 26-28; 30; 33-64; 70-78; 81; and 83-86.
96. Title 42 U.S.C §2000e-3(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:
It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer to

discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for
employment, for an employment agency, or joint
labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other
training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to
discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to
discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for
membership, because he has opposed any practice made an
15
unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he

has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this
subchapter.
97. Mr. Batson’s complaints to Ave Maria and to the EEOC and FCHR, and his filing
charges of discrimination and participation in proceedings related to his charges,
were protected activities under both Title VII and the FCRA.
98. Ave Maria’s ineffectual response to Mr. Batson’s reports, including their failure to
take remedial action concerning his pay, sexual harassment report and advocacy for
his female student athletes, all combined into a constellation of reactions that were
harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making
or supporting a charge of discrimination.
99. Ave Maria’s actions in failing to remedy Mr. Batson’s situation violates his rights
under Title VII and the FCRA.
Batson has suffered emotional distress, embarrassment, inconvenience and other
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and will continue to suffer additional losses
in the future.
future.
102. The violation of Mr. Batson’s statutorily protected right to be free of unlawful
discrimination constitutes irreparable harm for which Mr. Batson has no adequate
16
remedy at law entitling Mr. Batson to injunctive relief.
103. Mr. Batson is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Robert J. Batson, prays that this Court will:
One, issue a declaratory judgment that Ave Maria’s practices toward Mr. Batson
violated his rights against retaliation under TitleVII;
Two, enjoin Ave Maria and their agents from continuing to violate Mr. Batson’s statutory
rights under Title VII and to make Mr. Batson whole through reinstatement, back pay
and restoration of seniority and benefits, or, if that is not practical, through an award of
front pay;
Three, enter a judgment for Mr. Batson and against Ave Maria for compensatory and
punitive damages;
Four, grant Mr. Batson his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§2000e-5(k); and
provide.
Count III: FCRA Sex and Age Discrimination
104. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations of 1-4(d); 4(g); 6-57; 60-64;
70-78; and 81-86.
105. The Florida Civil Rights CT (“FCRA”) provides at §760.1091) FLA. STAT., as
follows:
It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
(a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual

or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect
17
to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment,

because of such individual’s. . .sex. . .[and/or] age. . .
(b) To limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants

for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to
deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely
affect any individual’s status as an employee, because of such
individual’s. . .sex. . .[and/or] age. . .
106. Ave Maria’s behavior toward Mr. Batson, through the behavior of their managers
and agents, was based on Mr. Batson’s sex and age and constituted discrimination
as proscribed by §760.10(1), Fla. Stat.
Batson as suffered emotional distress, embarrassment, inconvenience and other
pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses and will continue to suffer additional losses in
the future.
future.
109. The violation of Mr. Batson’s statutorily protected right to be free of unlawful
discrimination constitutes irreparable harm for which Mr. Batson has no adequate
remedy at law entitling Mr. Batson to injunctive relief.
expenses pursuant to § 760.11(5), Fla. Stat.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Robert J. Batson, prays that this Court will:
18
violated his rights against discrimination under the FCRA;
Two, enjoin Ave Maria and their agents from continuing to violate Mr. Batson’s
statutory rights under the FCRA and to make Mr. Batson whole through
Three, enter a judgment for Mr. Batson and against Ave Maria for compensatory
Four, grant Mr. Batson his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to
§ 760.11(5), Fla. Stat.; and
provide.
Count IV: FCRA Retaliation
111. Mr. Batson realleges and incorporate the allegations of 1-4(a); 4(d); 4(f); 4(h); 6-
13; 15-23; 26-28; 30-64; 70-78; 81; and 83-86.
112. The Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) provides at § 760.10(7), FLA. STAT., as
follows:
It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an

employment agency, a joint labor-management committee, or a
labor organization to discriminate agains any person because
that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful
employment practice under this section, or because that person
has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this
section.
113. Ave Maria’s behavior towards Mr. Batson was in retaliation for his protected
activity and constituted retaliation as proscribed by § 760.10(7), FLA. STAT.
19
expenses against Ave Maria pursuant to § 760.11(5), FLA. STAT.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Robert J. Batson, prays this court will:
violated his rights against retaliation under the FCRA;
statutory rights under the FCRA and to make Mr. Batson whole through
Three, enter a judgment for Mr. Batson and against Ave Maria for compensatory
Four, grant Mr. Batson his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to
§ 760.11(5), Fla. Stat.; and
provide.
Count V: ADEA Age Discrimination
115. Mr. Batson realleges and incorporate the allegations of 1-4(d); 4(g); 6-49; 51-57;
60-64; 70-78; and 81-86.
116. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) provides at 29 U.S.C. §
623, as follows:
a) Employer practices
It shall be unlawful for an employer--(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge
any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
20
individual's age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way
which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because
of such individual's age; or 3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order
to comply with this chapter.
117. Ave Maria’s actions, more particularly alleged above, constituted violations of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 20 U.S.C. § 621, et. seq., and were done
willfully with knowing or reckless disregard of the ADEA’s proscriptions.
Batson has lost wages and benefits in the past and will suffer additional losses in the
future, including the income from the eight additional years he planned to work,
having told numerous people at Ave Maria including players, parents, peers,
administrators and supervisors that he planned to work such years.
119. Ave Maria’s treatment of Mr. Batson constituted a willful violation of the ADEA,
entitling Mr. Batson to recover liquidated damages.
120. Mr. Batson is entitled to be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Robert J. Batson, prays that this Court will:
One, issue a judgment that the discrimination against Mr. Batson by Ave Maria was
a violation of Mr. Batson’s rights against age discrimination under the ADEA;
federally protected and to make Mr. Batson whole through back pay and restoration
21
of seniority and benefits, and reinstatement, or, if that is not practical, through an
award of front pay;
Three, enter a judgment for Mr. Batson and against Ave Maria for back pay and
liquidated damages for violations of the ADEA;
Four, grant Mr. Batson his costs, litigation expenses and reasonable attorney’s fees
against Ave Maria; and
provide.
Count VI: ADEA Retaliation
121. Mr. Batson realleges and incorporate the allegations of 1-4(a); 4(c)-4(d); 4(f); 6-
28; 30; 33-38; 40-49; 51-54; 60-64; 70-78; 81; and 84-86.
122. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) provides at 29 U.S.C. §
623, as follows: Mr. Batson realleges and incorporate the allegations of **
123. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) provides at 29 U.S.C.

§ 623, as follows:
d) Opposition to unlawful practices; participation in investigations, proceedings, or

litigation
It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or
applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any
individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or
applicant for membership, because such individual, member or applicant for
membership has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because
such individual, member or applicant for membership has made a charge, testified,
assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation
under this chapter.
124. Ave Maria’s actions, more particularly alleged above, constituted violations of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s retaliation provisions, 20 U.S.C. § 621, et.
22
seq., and were done willfully with knowing or reckless disregard of the ADEA’s
proscriptions.
Batson has lost wages and benefits in the past and will suffer additional losses in the
future, including the income from the eight additional years he planned to work ,
having told numerous people at Ave Maria including players, parents, peers,
administrators and supervisors that he planned to work such years.
126. Ave Maria’s treatment of Mr. Batson constituted a willful violation of the ADEA,
entitling Mr. Batson to recover liquidated damages.
127. Mr. Batson is entitled to be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Robert J. Batson, prays that this Court will:
One, issue a judgment that the discrimination against Mr. Batson by Ave Maria was
a violation of Mr. Batson’s rights against age discrimination retaliation under the
ADEA;
federally protected and to make Mr. Batson whole through back pay and restoration
of seniority and benefits, and reinstatement, or, if that is not practical, through an
award of front pay;
Three, enter a judgment for Mr. Batson and against Ave Maria for back pay and
liquidated damages for violations of the ADEA’s retaliation provisions;
23
Four, grant Mr. Batson his costs, litigation expenses and reasonable attorney’s fees
against Ave Maria; and
provide.
Count VII: Defamation-Libel
128. Mr. Batson realleges and incorporate the allegations of 1-4(a); 5-13; 17-23; 30;
33-37; 44; 47; 53-76; and 78-81.
129. On May 24, 2018, Ave Maria and its agents published the following false
statements about Mr. Batson:
a. Mr. Batson was not ethical and was dishonest; and
b. Mr. Batson failed to integrate the catholic faith into his team.
130. These false statements about Mr. Batson were published in a Performance
Review and Performance Improvement Plan which was and incorporated into Mr.
Batson’s personnel record at Ave Maria where it is discoverable and available for
dissemination to a very wide audience outside the “need to know” basis. The
document(s) is/are attached to this Complaint and marked as “Exhibit A.”
131. These false statements were published with malice.
132. Ave Maria and their agents acted with malice because they were discriminating
against Mr. Batson and were compelling him to quit, but he did not quit.
133. Ave Maria sought to separate Mr. Batson through attrition by writing demoralizing
statements concerning him, including but not limited to attacking his religious
convictions and depth of devotion.
24
134. Mr. Batson has been damaged by these false statements because the
statements subject Mr. Batson to hatred, contempt, ridicule and disgrace.
statements injured Mr. Batson in his profession and business.
statements attribute conduct, characteristics and conditions incompatible with the
proper exercise of Mr. Batson’s business and duties as a coach and leader of
student athletes.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Robert J. Batson prays that this Court will:
One, issue a judgment that awards Mr. Batson all compensatory damages including
consequential and incidental damages as a result of Ave Maria’s wrongdoing, to be
determined at trial;
Two, awarding Mr. Batson attorney’s fees and costs;
Three, requiring Ave Maria to make a public retraction of the false statements;
Four, granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Ave Maria from
making further defamatory remarks; and
Five, such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
25
Jury Demand
Plaintiff, Robert J. Batson, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: August 1, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Geralyn F. Noonan, Esquire
Geralyn F. Noonan, Esquire

P.O. Box 07338
Fort Myers, Florida 33919-0338
Phone: 239-694-7070
Fax: 239-481-0993
Florida Bar No.: 0968020
Attorney for Plaintiff
26
Case 2:19-cv-00543-SPC-MRM Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
JS 44 (Rev. 0) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Robert J. Batson Ave Maria University, Inc.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Lee County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Collier
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Law Office of Geralyn F. Noonan
P.O. Box 07338
Fort Myers, FL 33919-0338
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 375 False Claims Act
u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Product Liability u 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 367 Health Care/ u 400 State Reapportionment
u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS u 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury u 820 Copyrights u 430 Banks and Banking
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability u 830 Patent u 450 Commerce
u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal u 835 Patent - Abbreviated u 460 Deportation
Student Loans u 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) u 345 Marine Product Liability u 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
u 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 370 Other Fraud u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395ff) u 485 Telephone Consumer
u 160 Stockholders’ Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle u 371 Truth in Lending Act u 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
u 190 Other Contract Product Liability u 380 Other Personal u 720 Labor/Management u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations u 864 SSID Title XVI u 850 Securities/Commodities/
u 196 Franchise Injury u 385 Property Damage u 740 Railway Labor Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
u 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability u 751 Family and Medical u 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act u 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS u 893 Environmental Matters
u 210 Land Condemnation u 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: u 791 Employee Retirement u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff u 895 Freedom of Information
u 220 Foreclosure u 441 Voting u 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment u 510 Motions to Vacate u 871 IRS—Third Party u 896 Arbitration
u 240 Torts to Land u 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 u 899 Administrative Procedure
u 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations u 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: u 462 Naturalization Application u 950 Constitutionality of
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other u 550 Civil Rights Actions
u 448 Education u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original u 2 Removed from u 3 Remanded from u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from u 6 Multidistrict u 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
29 U.S.C. § 621, et. seq. (“ADEA”); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”); & Chapter 760 Fla. Stat. (“FCRA”)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Sex & age discrimination, retaliation and libel
VII. REQUESTED IN u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
08/01/2019 Geralyn F. Noonan, Esquire
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 0)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
,, Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
,,, Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
,9 Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
9 Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due tochanges in
statue.
9, Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
9,, Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
9,,, Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Batson Suit

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Batson Suit

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:19-cv-00543-SPC-MRM Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 26 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY, INC.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF-JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1. This is a discrimination/retaliation and libel action by Robert J. Batson, a 73-year-old

simultaneously awarding him a surprise poor performance review and a Performance

what he reasonably perceived was a sexual harassment scenario-that an Assistant

Batson on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). Mr. Batson’s performance rating

no explanation or example-a pretext for discrimination, and in contravention of the libel

and litigation expenses.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. Subject matter jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and

1337 (amount in controversy), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). The Court has

supplemental jurisdiction to determine the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

employed by the defendants as the women’s basketball coach. He is protected by

the ADEA, Title VII and the FCRA because:

opposed sex discrimination;

f. He complained about what he reasonably perceived to be discrimination;

g. He was replaced by a younger female; and

h. He filed a charge of discrimination and an amended charge of discrimination

and participated in proceedings related to those charges.

employment and issued statements of earnings to pay wages to him.

7. Plaintiff, on or about July 6, 2018, filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging a pattern

and practice and continuing violation of age discrimination, religious discrimination

filed with the Florida Commission of Human Relations (“FCRA”).

8. Plaintiff, on or about April 12, 2019, filed an Amended Charge of Discrimination

alleging a pattern and practice of sex discrimination in addition to age discrimination,

date stamped as issued June 18, 2019, attached.

Commission on Human Relations either conciliating plaintiff’s claims of

discrimination and retaliation under the FCRA or making a finding of no-cause

or have been waived.

13. Mr. Batson is well-qualified to serve as the women’s basketball coach.

they were offering to pay him as the women’s basketball coach.

basketball coach was a part time position.

initial offer and paid Mr. Batson according to a full-time position.

18. Mr. Batson’s work performance was exemplary.

was exemplary. They excelled in the classroom.

23. Mr. Batson maintained his appointed budget to recruit players.

because he opposed sex discrimination concerning his female student athletes.

definitively reflected this pay disparity.

Mr. Batson’s ten-year tenure.

a women’s program and because he did not need the money.

thinly veiled campaign to compel him to quit.

command chain-John Lamanna, John King and Kim King.

basketball coach and then also athletic director.

Batson either role extended to Mr. Lamanna-men’s basketball coach or athletic

husband and wife.

35. James Towey is Ave Maria’s President.

increase or budget increase for him.

dating one of his student players.

reasonably perceived was a quid pro quo sexual harassment issue.

programs, discriminating against him with respect to his compensation, terms,

conditions and privileges of employment based upon sex and age.

assembled the junior varsity team.

under the same scrutiny.

in the program with expediency.

Batson acquiesced, and Towey rebuked him in writing.

accelerate that evening’s schedule.

control over the Assistant’s presence or her commentary there.

convinced they should leave Ave Maria.

subjected him to reprisal for opposing the same.

18, 2018 after summoning him to a meeting under false pretenses.

54. Mr. Lamanna read the evaluation aloud to Mr. Batson.