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

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 1222
2010). 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