## Facts

- Debbie A. Peirick served as head coach of the women’s tennis team at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) from 1990 until her termination at the end of her thirteenth season.
- In her final season, the team achieved its best season, qualified for the NCAA tournament, and maintained the highest grade point average among IUPUI athletic teams.
- The athletics department evaluated coaches on academics, community service, compliance, budget management, fundraising, professional conduct and development, and athletic competition; the parties did not dispute that Peirick excelled in most categories.
- IUPUI cited player complaints that Peirick used foul or abusive language, drove unsafely during team trips, and allegedly misrepresented responsibility for a scheduling conflict.
- Athletic Director Michael Moore had authority to hire and fire coaches; Assistant Athletic Director Denise O’Grady participated in the termination decision.
- Peirick was 53 years old when terminated and was replaced within a month by a 23-year-old woman who was the sister of the men’s tennis coach.
- Peirick alleged that similarly situated male coaches with inferior performance records and comparable or more serious conduct issues were retained or disciplined less severely.

## Issues

1. Whether Peirick presented sufficient evidence under Title VII and § 1983 to create a genuine dispute that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated male coaches.
2. Whether the ADEA claim was barred because (a) IUPUI and the Indiana University Board of Trustees are immune from suit, and (b) the IUPUI Athletics Department lacks separate capacity to be sued.

## Decision

- The court vacated summary judgment on the sex-discrimination claim and remanded, holding that material factual disputes existed regarding whether Peirick was treated less favorably than similarly situated male coaches.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the ADEA claim, holding that IUPUI and the Board of Trustees are arms of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from private ADEA suits for damages in federal court.
- The court also held that the athletics department is not a suable entity separate from the university, supporting dismissal of the ADEA claim against it.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the sex-discrimination theory.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper on a Title VII/§ 1983 disparate-treatment claim when comparator evidence and contested facts could permit a reasonable jury to infer discriminatory treatment.
- For comparator analysis, employees may be “similarly situated” when they are evaluated under the same standards and subject to the same decisionmaker; an overly restrictive comparator definition can wrongly eliminate triable claims.
- Courts do not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing explanations for termination at summary judgment when the record permits competing inferences about the employer’s stated reasons.
- State universities and their governing boards, when acting as arms of the state, are generally immune under the Eleventh Amendment from private ADEA damages actions in federal court.
- Sub-units of a university that lack separate juridical status are not independently suable entities.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Peirick’s sex-discrimination claim could proceed because disputed comparator and pretext-related facts required a factfinder, but it окончluded her ADEA claim was barred because the university defendants were immune and the athletics department was not a separate suable entity.


Peirick v. Ind. Univ.-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis Athletics Dep’t, 510 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2007)