Joll v. Valparaiso Community Schools

Molly Joll (plaintiff) was a running coach with experience coaching cross-country for high-school and junior-high students in Valparaiso Community Schools (Valparaiso) (defendant). In 2013, Joll resigned from her coaching position at a Valparaiso middle school to better support her daughters in their own running careers. By 2014, one daughter’s running career had ended, and Joll could recommit to coaching. Upon learning that a Valparaiso high school was hiring an assistant coach for its girls’ cross-country team, Joll sent letters of interest to the principal and athletic director. Receiving no response, she followed up and engaged union help. She then received an interview. The interview centered on Joll’s prior resignation and concerns about her parenting responsibilities interfering with the coaching role. Her vast running and coaching experience was not discussed. Additionally, Joll’s references were contacted just days after the interview, which was inconsistent with usual practice. The high school hired the one other candidate, a younger man named John Arredondo. Arredondo had also resigned from a coaching position in 2013 for family reasons, yet his interview focused on his experience and coaching philosophy. Additionally, Arredondo’s references were not contacted until the usual time. The high school told Joll that it selected Arredondo because of his more recent experience with high-school athletes. Joll then learned that the school was hiring an assistant coach for the boys’ cross-country team. She applied. Again, her interview focused on family matters, and her references were handled differently from those of the one other candidate, Ben Kerezman. Although Kerezman did not have recent coaching experience, the high school hired him, citing a better rapport with the athletes because he already worked in the school as a teacher. Joll sued Valparaiso for sex and age discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in Valparaiso’s favor, finding insufficient evidence to warrant a jury trial. Joll appealed.