UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-30011
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
RICHARD RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR STATE
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(92-CV-2448)
______________________________________________________
(July 26, 1995)
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:1
Rodriguez appeals the district court's dismissal of his § 1983
suit alleging that the Southeastern University of Louisiana
violated his constitutional rights by not rehiring him as a student
assistant coach for the University's women's softball program. We
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendants and therefore affirm.
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
I.
Richard Rodriguez, a former student at the Southeastern
University of Louisiana (the "University"), filed suit against
several of the University's athletic officials and the Louisiana
Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Rodriguez's suit centers on his allegations that
the University's athletic department did not renew his contract as
a student assistant coach for the women's softball program during
the 1992-1993 school year because of his special relationship with
the women's head softball coach, Jacqueline Paddio. Rodriguez
alleges that his close relationship with Coach Paddio is protected
by the "associational freedom" prong of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments under Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609
(1984), and that the University's failure to rehire him because of
this relationship was therefore in retaliation for the exercise of
his constitutional rights.
Paddio originally hired Rodriguez as a student assistant coach
for the 1991-1992 school year. Rodriguez alleged that his
relationship with Coach Paddio was closer than a typical employer-
employee relationship. According to Rodriguez, Coach Paddio acted
as his mentor and was supportive of his goal to pursue a career in
coaching. Coach Paddio and Rodriguez attended outside social and
religious functions together and Rodriguez was close to Paddio's
family. In May 1992, Coach Paddio forwarded Rodriguez's name to
the University's athletic department and recommended that he be
rehired as a student assistant coach for the upcoming 1992-1993
2
school year.2 In June 1992, the athletic department notified Coach
Paddio that the University would not renew her contract as head
coach for the upcoming 1992-1993 school year.
At some point in July of 1992, Rodriguez approached Thomas
Douple, the University's athletic director, to discuss whether he
would be rehired for the upcoming school year. Douple explained
that the head coach of the softball was responsible for selecting
the program's assistant coaches, and that Rodriguez would have to
contact the program's new head coach before he could be rehired.
At the time Rodriguez talked with Douple, the University had not
officially named a new head coach. The University hired a new head
coach on July 20, 1992. Despite Douple's instructions, Rodriguez
did not contact the new head coach about the assistant coaching
position. Instead, he filed the instant suit on July 21, 1992.
Rodriguez named as defendants the Louisiana Board of Trustees
for State Colleges and Universities, Douple, and two additional
University officials, Dr. G. Warren Smith and Dr. Robert Butler.3
The district court dismissed the claims against the Board on the
grounds that the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The
court referred the claims against the remaining defendants to a
magistrate judge. The remaining defendants then filed motions for
2
At the time, the University generally hired student
assistant coaches on a yearly basis. At the end of a school year,
the names of student coaches desiring re-employment during the
upcoming school year had to be submitted to the University's
athletic department for approval.
3
During the period in question, Dr. Smith was the
President of the University and Dr. Butler was the University's
Vice-President of Institutional Advancement.
3
summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that these
motions be granted for two reasons: (1) that the relationship
between Rodriguez and Coach Paddio was not protected under the
associational freedom prong of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
and (2) that Rodriguez failed to create a material question of fact
as to whether his relationship with Coach Paddio was a substantial
or motivating factor behind the University's failure to rehire him.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations
and entered summary judgment against Rodriguez. Rodriguez timely
appealed.4
II.
Under the framework set forth in Mt. Healthy City School Dist.
Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977), Rodriguez bore the
initial burden of demonstrating (1) that his relationship with
Coach Paddio was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
and (2) that this relationship was a "substantial or motivating
factor" behind the University's failure to rehire him. Summary
judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material
fact as to either element. See Young v. Biggers, 917 F.2d 873 (5th
Cir. 1990). We need not decide whether Rodriguez's relationship
with Coach Paddio was entitled to constitutional protection because
we agree with the district court that no genuine issues of material
fact were presented as to whether this relationship was a
4
Rodriguez does not challenge the district court's
dismissal of the Board on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
4
substantial or motivating factor behind the University's failure to
rehire him.
The affidavits of Dr. Smith, Dr. Butler, and Mr. Douple set
forth specific facts negating Rodriguez's allegations that he was
not rehired because of his relationship with Coach Paddio. Dr.
Smith and Dr. Butler stated that they did not know Rodriguez during
the period in question and were unaware of the special relationship
between him and Coach Paddio. Although Douple apparently knew that
Rodriguez was an assistant coach under Coach Paddio, he stated that
he did not know about the close or special nature of their
relationship. Douple further explained that neither he nor any of
the other defendants were responsible for failing to rehire
Rodriguez. According to Douple, he told Rodriguez that Coach
Paddio's successor would be responsible for selecting the assistant
coach for upcoming school year. Douple states that he encouraged
Rodriguez to contact the new head coach about the coaching
position. According to Douple, Rodriguez was not rehired for the
1992-1993 school year because he failed to contact the new head
coach and state his interest in the assistant coaching position.
As a result, the new coach did not submit Rodriguez's name to the
athletic department as her choice for the assistant coaching
position.
Our review of the summary judgment record persuades us that
Rodriguez failed to effectively negate the defendants' affidavits.
Rodriguez failed to cite any facts negating the defendants'
assertion that they were not aware of his special relationship with
5
Coach Paddio.5 Moreover, Rodriguez fails to negate the defendants'
assertion that they were not responsible for selecting student
coaches. Rodriguez points to the fact that the out-going head
coach of the University's track team was allowed to hire student
assistant coaches for the upcoming 1992-1993 school year even
though the University did not renew the coach's contract.
According to Douple's affidavit, however, the track team's student
coaches were not formally hired until they were approved by the
track team's new head coach. Rodriguez's evidence does not,
therefore, negate the defendants' assertions that the incoming head
softball coach was ultimately responsible for selecting student
softball coaches for the upcoming 1992-1993 school year.
Rodriguez also cites scattered excerpts from Douple's
testimony in a related lawsuit to show that Douple and other
University officials cut funding for student coaches in order to
thwart his rehiring. Double apparently testified that the
University eliminated the funding for student assistant coaches at
some point during the summer of 1992. Rodriguez cites evidence
that, despite the alleged funding cut, the University hired a
student coach for the women's softball program in August of 1992.
Rodriguez suggests that the alleged funding cut was part of an
5
The summary judgment record reveals that Mr. Douple knew
that Rodriguez was an assistant coach under Coach Paddio. However,
we do not understand Rodriguez to be arguing that a mere employer-
employee relationship is protected by the First Amendment right to
associational freedom. Rather, Rodriguez contends that it is the
unique close relationship between him and Coach Paddio that is
protected by the First Amendment.
6
effort by the University to prevent him from retaining his coaching
position.
Rodriguez's reliance on the alleged funding cut to create a
material issue of fact is unpersuasive. Rodriguez fails to point
to any evidence that Mr. Douple used the funding cut to prevent
Rodriguez from being rehired. Significantly, Rodriguez does not
challenge Douple's assertion that he encouraged Rodriguez to
contact the softball program's new head coach about the position.6
Most importantly, this evidence does not controvert the defendants'
assertion that they did not know about the special relationship
between Rodriguez and Coach Paddio.
In sum, our review of the summary judgment record persuades us
that Rodriguez failed to raise a fact issue as to whether his
relationship with Coach Paddio was a motivating factor behind the
University's failure to rehire him as a student coach. We
therefore conclude that the district court did not err in granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
AFFIRMED.
6
Rodriguez complains that Douple would not tell him the
name of the new head coach or how he could get in contact with her.
Douple's affidavit reveals, however, that the new head coach had
not yet been formally hired at the time Douple talked with Paddio.
7