Jerry Lee Baldwin v. The Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and Nelson Schexnayder, Individually and in his Capacity as Director of Athletics for the University of Louisiana at Lafayette ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2019 CA 0811
JERRY LEE BALDWIN
VERSUS
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
LOUISIANA SYSTEM, THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT
LAFAYETTE, AND NELSON SCHEXNAYDER, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE
Judgment Rendered: FEB 2 17070
On Appeal from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 509, 900
Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
G. Karl Bernard Attorney for Plaintiff A
- ppellant,
New Orleans, LA Jerry Lee Baldwin
Honorable Jeff Landry Attorneys for Defendant -Appellee,
Attorney General The Board of Supervisors for the
Stephen J. Oats University of Louisiana System
Lawrence E. Marino
Special Asst. Attorneys General
Lafayette, LA
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
HIGGINBOTHAM, J.
This case involves a racial discrimination claim filed by Jerry Lee Baldwin, a
former head football coach for the University of Louisiana at Lafayette ( ULL),
against the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, ULL, and
Nelson Schexnayder, individually, and in his capacity as Director of Athletics for
ULL (collectively referred to as " ULL"). Baldwin' s racial discrimination claim was
dismissed after a third trial on the merits held in July 2018. Baldwin appeals.
BACKGROUND
We are very familiar with the background of this case, as the litigation has
been ongoing for almost twenty years and includes numerous writ actions and
appeals before this court. Therefore, we will briefly cover the factual and procedural
background and use an abbreviated recitation of evidence and testimony that has
been repeated multiple times over the years.
In December of 1998, Baldwin was hired as the first African-American head
football coach for ULL. On November 26, 2001, after three losing football seasons
with dwindling attendance, sponsorships, and financial support, Baldwin was
relieved of his duties as head coach. However, ULL continued to pay Baldwin' s
salary throughout the remaining term of his contract. On July 21, 2003, Baldwin
filed a suit alleging various claims including breach of contract, intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with a contract, and
abuse of rights. On September 17, 2004, Baldwin filed an amending and
supplemental petition specifically alleging a racial discrimination claim against
ULL. After three trials, voluminous motions, writ applications, and appeals, a final
judgment was rendered on August 21, 2018, dismissing Baldwin' s racial
discrimination claim.' Baldwin appeals, arguing that the judgment was the product
In 2007, Baldwin obtained a jury verdict on some of his claims stemming from his 2001
termination; however, this court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to numerous errors.
Baldwin v. Board of Supervisors for University of Louisiana System, 2008- 2359 ( La. App. 1 st
2
of the trial judge' s erroneous application of the proper burden of proof, analysis, and
procedure necessary for racial discrimination claims.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under Louisiana law, it is unlawful for an employer to "[ i] ntentionally fail or
refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to intentionally
discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, or terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the individual' s race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin." La. R.S. 23: 332( A)( 1) [ Emphasis added]. Racial
discrimination is also unlawful under federal law pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation. See McDonnell Douglas
Corporation v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 793- 794, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1820, 36 L.Ed.2d
663 ( 1973). Based on the commonality between federal and state anti -discrimination
laws, state courts may appropriately consider a federal court' s interpretation of
federal statutes to resolve similar questions concerning Louisiana statutes and the
proper burden of proof sequence. Hicks v. Central Louisiana Electric Company,
Inc., 97- 1232 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 15/ 98), 712 So. 2d 656, 658.
The plaintiff claiming discrimination has the initial burden of proof and must
establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The plaintiff may meet this initial
burden by showing that ( 1) he is a member of a racial minority; ( 2) he is qualified
for the position; ( 3) he was discharged; and ( 4) the position was filled by a person
who was not a member of the protected minority class. See McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 802, 93 S. Ct. at 1824. See also St. Mary' s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509
Cir. 6/ 30/ 09), 2009 WL 1879476 ( unpublished), writs denied, 2009- 1917, 2009- 1919 ( La.
12/ 18/ 09), 23 So. 3d 947, 948, cert. denied, 560 U. S. 926, 130 S. Ct. 3330, 176 L.Ed. 2d 12222010). After various other writ applications and appeals, six of Baldwin' s claims were dismissed,
including his breach of contract claim and all claims against Nelson Schexnayder, leaving the sole
claim concerning whether ULL terminated Baldwin " because of his race, in violation of La. R.S.
23: 332. Baldwin v. Board of Supervisors for University of Louisiana System, 2014- 0827 ( La.
10/ 15/ 14), 156 So. 3d 33. A second jury trial in March of 2016 ended in a hung jury. The third
trial on the merits was a bench trial held in July 2018, which resulted in a final judgment dismissing
Baldwin' s racial discrimination claim against ULL, with prejudice, and at Baldwin' s cost.
3
U.S. 502, 506, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2747, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 ( 1993). If the plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant employer who must
articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action. If the defendant
articulates such a reason, the plaintiff must then show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant' s reason is mere pretext to cover up a discriminatory
action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802- 04; 93 S. Ct. 1824- 25; Vaughn v.
Edel, 918 F. 2d 517, 521 ( 5th Cir. 1990).
At trial, Baldwin presented what he considered to be a prima facie case of
racial discrimination. He offered evidence to show that he was an African-
American, his background as a football coach that qualified him for the position of
head coach at ULL, his removal from his coaching duties prior to the end of his
contracted term, and his replacement by a white male. The trial court found, and we
agree, that Baldwin did indeed present a prima facie case of discrimination.
ULL offered what it considered legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for
Baldwin' s removal as head coach. ULL pointed to the three losing seasons
comprising the entirety of Baldwin' s tenure, as well as the significant drop in game
attendance, particularly in light of a pending NCAA rule that required a higher level
of attendance for ULL to maintain its Division lA status. Additionally, ULL
provided witness testimony that the win/loss record and low attendance at games
combined to create a decline in athletic sponsorships and support, which contributed
to an ongoing budget crisis. For all of those reasons, ULL felt that an immediate
change in the head football coaching position was necessary.
Baldwin maintains that the reasons offered by ULL were not the true reasons
for his termination, but were merely pretextual to cover up racial discrimination.
Baldwin presented evidence that he believed undermined ULL' s claim of
nondiscriminatory reasons. There was testimony that ULL realized that the team
Baldwin inherited was extremely weak in terms of depth and talent, and that it would
0
take some time to turn around the football program. There was also testimony that
despite the fact that Baldwin' s replacement coach had two similar losing seasons, he
was actually offered a contract extension instead of being terminated. Further,
Baldwin attempted to show that he was treated differently than his predecessor and
successor coaches in that the scheduled " money games" during his tenure were not
sufficient to overcome ULL' s budget crisis. Baldwin also presented considerable
testimony regarding ULL' s failure to replace the athletic department' s marketing
director and failure to support his quest for televising games and a coach' s television
show, which he thought would create more local interest in ULL football. Baldwin
testified that he repeatedly requested repairs to an " eyesore" trophy case that
negatively reflected on the football program during recruiting season. The evidence
revealed that the coach' s television show, better money games, a new marketing
director, and the repair of the trophy case all occurred after Baldwin' s tenure.
ULL presented evidence that countered Baldwin' s interpretation of the facts
and motives that Baldwin assigned to ULL' s actions. ULL showed that Baldwin
had an excellent reputation as a recruiter, and he was specifically hired to improve
the football program that all acknowledged was in bad condition. Witnesses testified
that the decision not to televise games was due to lack of funds, and the decision not
to have the coach' s television show was actually a decision made by the local station
based on advertising. Witnesses further testified that money games were scheduled
years in advance and did not have anything to do with the coach at the time the game
was actually played. ULL witnesses also testified that any delay in the repair of the
trophy case arose from the lack of funds and some missteps by a volunteer involved
in the repair. According to ULL witnesses, the same lack of funds during Baldwin' s
coaching tenure caused the delay in the hiring of another marketing director for the
athletic department; however, many improvements were made to athletic facilities
during Baldwin' s tenure. Finally, ULL offered testimony of many witnesses that
5
showed ULL had a long history of hiring minorities for administrative, faculty, and
coaching positions. No witness, other than Baldwin himself, indicated that they had
seen or heard of any kind of racial issue while Baldwin was head coach. The
president of ULL, Dr. Ray Authement, made the final decision to hire and fire
Baldwin. Authement specifically denied that any comments concerning race were
ever made to Baldwin or about Baldwin. Authement testified that race played
absolutely no part in the hiring or firing of Baldwin, and he never received any
pressure to fire Baldwin because of race. The pressure was all about the losing
seasons, the lack of program improvement, and the dire financial consequences of
dwindling support for the football program.
The trial court heard all of the testimony, considered all of the evidence, and
reviewed the voluminous exhibits and deposition testimony from the previous trials.
In oral reasons for judgment, the trial court stated that the entire crux of the case
centered on whether Baldwin was treated differently because of his race. The trial
court found that Baldwin met his burden of setting forth a prima facie showing of
discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas factors, and that ULL had met its
burden of showing legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Baldwin.
The trial court then analyzed whether Baldwin had sufficiently shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the reasons set forth by ULL were merely a
pretext or a cover up of racial discrimination. The trial court stated that while it was
clear that Baldwin believed or perceived that his firing was due to racial factors, the
evidence simply did not support that belief. The trial court found that both Baldwin
and Authement were credible witnesses; however, the trial court concluded that the
evidence fully supported the legitimate reasons provided by ULL for the termination
of Baldwin' s tenure as ULL' s head football coach. The trial court noted that the
witnesses presented almost unanimous and overwhelming evidence that race was
not a factor in Baldwin' s termination.
Baldwin makes much of the fact that when reciting oral reasons for judgment,
the trial court misstated the evidentiary burden of proof as " beyond a reasonable
doubt" rather than by a " preponderance of the evidence" or " more likely than not."
Baldwin argues that this was reversible error, which requires this court to conduct a
de novo review. See Jones v. Black, 95- 2530 ( La. 6/ 28/ 96), 676 So. 2d 1067, 1067
where the fact-finding process has been tainted by some material legal error and the
record is complete, the appellate court renders judgment on the record). However,
our review of the trial court' s oral reasons reveals that when the mistake was pointed
out by opposing counsel, the trial court immediately apologized and stated that
preponderance of the evidence" is the standard that the trial court used. Thus, we
find no merit to Baldwin' s argument.
Baldwin also asserts that the trial court failed to properly analyze the facts
using the McDonnell Douglas framework for determining whether there was racial
discrimination involved in Baldwin' s termination. Again, we find no merit to
Baldwin' s assertions. The trial court expressly stated that the McDonnell Douglas
analysis was used in evaluating the evidence and correctly outlined the matter for
decision: Whether Baldwin could show that ULL' s legitimate and
nondiscriminatory reasons for his firing are a mere pretext to cover up a racial
motivation for the termination. Despite the shifting of burdens under the McDonnell
Douglas analysis, the ultimate burden remains with the plaintiff to show that the true
reason for the adverse employment action was an impermissible discriminatory
factor. See St. Mary' s Honor Center, 509 U.S. at 508, 113 S. Ct. at 2747- 48.
The trial court found that Baldwin failed to show that race was the true reason
for his termination; rather, ULL terminated Baldwin because of his losing record, as
well as declining attendance and income that was jeopardizing ULL' s Division IA
status.
After thoroughly reviewing the evidence presented, we cannot find any
manifest error in the trial court' s determination. The trial court' s ruling is reasonably
VA
supported by the record and should be affirmed. See Stobart v. State through Dept.
of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). Moreover, after a
discrimination case has been fully tried, the burden -shifting analysis ceases to be of
paramount importance to the appellate court. Instead, the inquiry becomes whether
the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conclusions reached by the
factfinder. See Seagrave v. Dean, 2003- 2272 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 6/ 10/ 05), 908 So. 2d
41, 45, writ denied, 2005- 2349 ( La. 3/ 17/ 06), 925 So. 2d 543, and cert. denied, 549
U.S. 822, 127 S. Ct. 157, 166 L.Ed.2d 38 ( 2006).
CONCLUSION
Finding no reversible error in the trial court' s August 21, 2018 judgment
dismissing Jerry Lee Baldwin' s racial discrimination claim against the Board of
Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System at his cost, we hereby affirm that
final judgment. All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant, Jerry Lee
Baldwin.
AFFIRMED.
8