- 1 -

06

- 38 15

- cv H o l co m b v. Iona C o l l ege 1 2 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 3 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 4

____________________________________ 5 6 August Term, 2007 7 8 (Argued: September 5, 2007 Dec ided: April 1, 2008) 9 10 Docke t No. 06-3815-c v 11

____________________________________ 12 13 CRA I G H OL CO MB , 14 Plaintif f-Appellant , 15 16 v. 17 18 I ONA COL L EGE, 19 Defendant- Appellee

. 20 21

____________________________________ Be fore : WAL KER, CAL AB RESI , and SACK, Circuit Judges

. 22 23

____________________________________ 24 25 Appea l f

rom an order of the United States District Court f or the Southern Dis t ri ct o f New 26 York (Mc Mahon, J. ), g ranting summary judgme nt to De fenda nt-Appellee on Plaintiff-Appellant’s 27 Ti tle VI Ie mpl oy me nt d isc ri min a tio n c la im. 28 Vac ated a nd rema nded. 29 J EF F R EY A. U D ELL (T h o m as J

. Fl em i n g on the br ief ) 30 Olshan Grundma n Fr ome Rosenweig & Wolosky 31 L L P, New Yor k, N.Y., for Plainti

ff-Appellant

. 32 R I C HAR D L. S T EER ( A n th o n y D

. D o u g h e rt y o n the 33 34 brief ) Tar ter, Kr insky

& D rog in L L P, New Yor k, 35 N.Y., for Defendant-Appe llee

.- 2 - 1

___________________________________ 2 CAL AB RESI , Circuit Judge : 3 Pla i n t i ff

-Appe llant Craig Holcomb appe als from a decision of the district c ourt, which 4 g ra

nte d D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lle e I on a Col le g e ’s mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g ment on Ho lc omb ’s c la im 5 under Title VI I of the Civil R ights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq

. Holcomb, who is white, 6 c la ims that th e c oll e g e ’s de c isi on to t e rm inate his e mpl oy

me nt a s an as sis tant co a c h of its b a sk e tba ll 7 te am w a s mo tiv a te d b y his marr ia g e to a bla c k w oma

n. Th e c oll e g e c on te nd s, ins te a d, that H olc omb 8 wa s r e mov e d f

ro m it s st a ff

a s pa rt of a ne c e ssa

ry ov e rh a ul o f a po or ly pe rf or min g te am, a

nd a sse rt s 9 that the dec ision was not based on ra ce. 10 We h old , f or the fi rs t ti me , th a t an e mpl oy e r m ay vio late Ti tle VI I if

it t ake s a c tio n a g a ins t 11 an employ ee be cause of the e mploy ee’ s association with a person of another rac e. Fur ther, we find 12 that a re asonable jury could deter

mine that Holcomb was f ired in par

t beca use he w as marrie d to a 13 black woma

n. Acc ording ly , we vaca

te the district c ourt’s judgme nt, a nd rema nd the case for f

urther 14 proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

B ACKG ROUND 15

16 I. The Evi dence in the Rec ord

17 We emphasize that, at this stage of the proc eeding s, we are r equire d to construe the e vidence 18 ad d u ced in the court below in the lig ht most favorable to plaintiff’s ca se. See , e . g., Holtz v. 19 Rock

efeller &Co., Inc. , 258 F.3d 62, 69 ( 2d Cir. 2001).- 3 -

A. The I ona Colleg e Men’ s Ba sketball Team 1

2 I n 1 99 5, Cr a ig Ho lc omb wa s hir e d as an a ssi sta nt co a c h of t

he “ I on a Ga e ls” me n’ s b a sk e tba ll 3 team. Holcomb r eporte d both to the Head Coa ch, T i m W el s h , an d to the colleg e’s Dir ector of 4 Athletics, a role filled at that time by Richard Petric cione. 5 I n 1998, Welsh left and was r eplac ed as H ead Coa ch by J eff Ru l an d , an alumnus of I ona, 6 who was twic e an N BAAl l S tar, a nd who is white. When Ruland was appointed, H olcomb was 7 made “ Associate H ead Coa ch.” T his new title denoted his position a s the top assistant to Ruland, 8 and wa s acco m panied by a pay raise, but se emed to make no differ ence to Holcomb’s day -to-day 9 responsibilities as an assistant coa ch. When Ruland came on board, the I ona Ga els wer e enjoy ing 10 considera

ble on-c ourt succe ss, and their g ood form continued for three seasons there afte r. The te am 11 won the Metro A tlantic Athletic Confer ence (“MAA C”) Tourna ment in 1998, 2000, and 2001, 12 there by

ear ning a spot in the National Colleg iate Athletic Assoc iation (“NCAA” ) Men’ s Division 13 ICha

mpi on sh ip T ourn ame nt i n e a c h o f t ho se y e ars . 14 I n J une 2000, Holcomb mar ried Pamela

Gauthier , an Af

rica n-Amer ican woma

n. In 2001, 15 Ruland beg an a r elationship with I ris Hanse n, who was also an Af rica n-Amer ican woma

n and fr iend 16 of Ga

uthier. Ha

nsen and Gauthier

often we nt to games and post-g ame f unctions toge ther. In J une 17 2001, Ruland signe d a new eig ht-y ear

contra ct as He ad Coac h. This c ontrac t, worth over $300,000 18 a y ear , made Ruland the hig hest paid employ ee at I ona. 19 Fr om 1998 to 2004, Ruland supervised the sa me three assistant coac hes: Holcomb worke d 20 along side Tony

Chiles, who is Africa

n-Amer ican, and Rob O’Dr iscoll, the m ost junior of the thre e,- 4 - 1 who is white, and who wa s n o t i n an interra cial re lationship. This case ar ises from the c olleg e’s 2 2004 decision to fire Holcomb and Chiles, while dec iding to re tain O’Dr iscoll and Ruland. 3

B. B renna

n and Petricc ione 4

5 Of the f

ive offic ers of

the colleg e for

mally involved in the decision to end Holc omb’s 6 employ

ment, Holcomb imputes improper ra cial mo ti v e s to tw o people: Shawn B renna n (the Dire ctor 7 o f At hletics) and Richa rd Petricc ione (a

Vice Pre sident of the colleg e). B renna n and Petricc ione 8 wer e close colleagues. Be fore 2001, Br ennan worke d as Sports I nformation Dire ctor dire ctly under 9 Pe tr ic c ion e , w ho w a s t h e n t h e A t hle tic s D ir e c tor . Wh e n Pe tr ic c ion e wa s p ro mot e d to Vi c e Pr e sid e nt, 10 Br ennan r eplac ed him as Dire ctor of A thletics, and the two wor ked in t an d em for a

y ear -long 11 transitional period. 12 As Vice President for Advanc ement and Ex terna l A ffa irs, Petriccione was one of three Vice 13 Presidents workingimmediately under the colleg e Presid en t , Br other James L iguor i. I n that 14 capa city , P et ri cc i one wa s the chief fund-r aising office r at the c olleg e, and w orked on a lumni 15 relations, advertising , public relations, c orporate and f oundational g rants, and sc holarships. I t was 16 evidently

no coincidenc e that an e rstwhile Athl et i cs Di rec tor was c hosen for this post; sporting 17 events a

nd activities play

a major part i n I ona’s alumni relations and fund-ra ising e ffor ts. The men’s 18 ba sk e tba ll p ro g ra m, i n p art ic ula

r, pla y e d a pr omi ne nt r ole in I on a ’s a lumni o utr e a c h e nd e avo rs . 19 Ho l c o m

b c l a i m s t h a t b o t h B r e nn a n a n d P e tr ic c ion e ha d p ri or

his tor ie s o f r a c ia lly

qu e sti on a ble 20 conduct, a

nd relies on these histories as support for his claim t hat t he colleg e’s ter mination decision 21 was ba sed, at lea st in part, on the fa ct that his wife wa s b l ack. I n particula

r, Holcomb c laims that- 5 - 1 the te rm inatio n de c isi on wa s motiv a te d by a pe rc e ive d ne e d to app e a l to the po c ke ts of I on a ’s mos tly 2 wh ite a lumni. 3

1. Brennan 4

5 I n b uil din g his c a se that he wa s f ir e d f or ra c ia l re a so ns , Ho lc omb c ite s, amon g oth e r t hin g s, 6 Shawn B renna

n’s dec ision to bar high sc hool students, and Holcomb’s wife , from “G oal Club” 7 e ve nts . T he Go a l Clu b is an I on a

Col le g e a lumni f

un dr a isi ng and

so c ia l or g anizatio n, and is 8 overse en by

the Dire ctor of A thletics. Members of the Club, most of whom are I ona alumni, pay an 9 annual f

ee to the A thletics Depa

rtment, and in re turn are invited to attend specia l f u nctions and 10 pa

rt ie s. Thro ug ho ut the pe ri od un de r co ns ide ra tio n, the Go a l Clu

b r outin e ly

he ld p re -g ame or

po st11 g ame r ece ptions with t he play ers a nd coac hes of the me n’s baske tball team. 12 Holcomb asser ts that, from at lea st 1997 until 2003, high sc hool basketball play ers f rom local 13 sc ho ols , in c lud ingpo te nti a l ba sk e tba ll r e c ru its , w e re pe rm itt e d to a tt e nd the se po st- g ame pa

rt ie s. 14 The majority

of hig h school students who attende d these e vents wer e African- Americ an. Moreover, 15 Holcomb’s Af

rica n-Amer ican wif

e re g ularl y ac co mpanied him to Goal Club functions. On 16 Holcomb’s ac count, all that chang ed after a November 29, 2003 home g ame a g ainst Georg e Mason 1 7 U n i v e r s i t y. 18 After

the game, severa l basketba ll play ers from near by Mount Ver

non Hig h School attended 19 a Goa l Club event with their coac h. All these students wer e Af rica n-Amer ican. The colleg e’s 20 version of events is that its Assistant Athletic Direc tor for Compliance , J amie F og arty , noticed that 21 the ir

numbe r i nc lud e d a

highly pr ize d stu de nt a thl e te wh om I on a wa s a tte mpt ing to re c ru it. F og art yBr ennan de nies saying a ny such thing

. 1

- 6 - 1 wa s c on c e rn e d th a t th e stu de nt’ s p re se nc e vio late d N CA A re c ru iti ng re g ulatio ns . B re nn an th e n to ld 2 Ho l co mb t o a s k a l l t h e h i ghs ch o o l p l ay er s an d t h ei r c o ac ht o l ea v e. Br en n an l at er b arre d h i gh 3 sc ho ol s tud e nts fr om f utu re Go a l Clu

b e ve nts

. 4 Holcomb took a nother view of the issue, and prese nts a differ ent acc ount of th e college ’s 5 motive for bar

ring the students

. On his rea ding of the NCAA’s r

ules, permitting hig h school 6 students to come to post-g ame e vents was at worst a “g ray are a.” Mor eover , Holcomb believe d that 7 t h e n ew p o l i cy

wo u l d s er i o u s l y hu rt re cr u i t i n g . He t o l d

Br en n an as m u ch at a l at er m ee t i n g. 8 Sus pe c tin g t hat B re nn an w ante d to re du c e Af ri c an- Am e ri c an atte nd anc e a t G oa l Clu b e ve nts , 9 Holcomb aske d Br ennan if he was “looking for a rea son not to allow the student athletes to come.” 10 At

the same me e tin g , B re nn an a lle g e dly tol d H olc omb that H olc omb ’s wi fe, alongwi th 11 Ruland’s g irlfriend I ris Hanse n, should no longe r attend Goal C lub functions. His stated re ason for 1 12 excluding these two Afric an-A merica n women wa s that they

wer e nei t h er alumni nor donors. 13 Holcomb, howeve r, conc luded that B renna n was a g ain attempting to limi t the nu m b er of blac k 14 people at the colleg e’s f undraisingevents. 15 I n ad d i t i o n to his alleg ations about the Goa l Club, Holcomb also relies on testimony that 1 6 Br en n an , o ns ee i n g s o m e o f t h e c o l l ege t ea m ’s Af ri ca n -A m er i ca np l ay er s we ar i n g h i p -h o p cl o th i n g, 17 asked Ruland if he could “g et these c olored boy s to dress like the white guy s on the team.”1 Petriccione say s this accusa tion is “ridiculous.” [A 335]. 2

- 7 - 1

2. Petriccione 2

3 Holcomb has a lso adduce d aff idavits and testimony

to the ef f ect that Richa

rd Petricc ione was 4 in the habit of mak i n g ra cially offe nsive comments. Ear ly in his tenure as a

n assistant coac h, 5 Ho lc omb c la ims to h ave he ard Pe tr ic c ion e say : “ [E]ve ry bo dy a t F or dh am th ink s th e y

have the se 6 g oo d b la c k kids , an d I on a ha s nig g e rs .” A y e ar late r, wh e n s e ve ra l bl a c k me mbe rs of the I on a Ga e ls 7 wer e accuse d of st ealing and selli ng telephone acc ess codes, Petriccione alleg edly told Holcomb that 8 the baske tball prog ram ne eded to “ keep [its] nigg ers in line.” 9 Colleag ues at I ona testified to Petr iccione’ s rec ord of what might, char itably , be ca lled rac ial 10 insensitivit y . Eg reg iously in this respe ct, Petricc ione is said to have r efe rre d to a Nig eria n employ ee 11 at the Alumni Giving O ffice as a “ jungle bunny ” and an “Africa n prince ss.” When that member of 12 staff a

pplied to h is office for the position of Assistant Direc tor of Annua l Giving, he rema rked: 13 “ [W]ha t do e s sh e thi nk sh e is c omi ngfr om a

hut in Af ri c a and thi nk ingsh e c ou ld a

pp ly fo r t his 14 job? ” 15 Th e mos t stri kin g of the a lle g a tio ns a g a ins t Pe tr ic c ion e re late s dir e c tly to H olc omb and his 16 wife. Plaintiff testified that in February 2000, he aske d Petriccione whether he had r ece ived the 17 we dd ing inv itatio n that Holc omb and Ga uth ie r ha d s e nt h im. Ac c or din g to H olc omb , w ho se c la im 18 is backe d up in this respect by a third par

ty , Petriccione replied: “[Y] ou’re rea lly g oing to marry that 19 Aunt J emima? You re ally are a nig g er love r.” 2- 8 -

C. Discontent 1 2 After

the succ esses of Ruland’ s first three y ear s i n ch ar ge, the men’s ba sketball prog ram 3 beg an to suffe r poorer fortunes. The parties dispute the extent of the downturn, but it is clear that 4 the c oll e g e ha d s e ri ou s c a us e fo r c on c e rn

a bo ut t he te am’ s o n- c ourt

re su lts and

its of f- c ourt a c tiv iti e s. 5 On the cour t, the team we nt from an impre ssive win-loss tally of 74-50 f

or the pe riod of 1997 6 to 2001, to a lackluster r ecor d of 41-47 f or 2001 to 2004. In stark contr as t with the prec eding 7 seasons, the Gae l s fa i l ed t o m ake it to the NCAA tourna ment in 2002, 2003, or 2004. The tea m 8 came under f

ire from the media and from fans for its inconsist ent per formanc es. In 2003-2004, the 9 te am f

ini sh e d s e ve nth

out of te n i n th e MA AC, a

nd ha d a re c or d o f 1 1- 18 . T he pr og ra m a lso 10 exhibi ted problems off the cour t. I n late 2001, sever al play ers wer e discovere d to have de fra uded 11 the c oll e g e by

buyingbo ok s w it h bo ok vo uc he rs and se lli ngthe bo ok s f

or c a sh . Po or

a c a de mic 12 perf

ormanc e led to the dismissal of two starting play ers afte r the 2002-2003 season; two more we re 13 suspended f

or the same rea son during the co u rs e o f the 2003-2004 sea son. And in late 2003, the 14 NCAA informe d the colleg e that it was in v es t i g ating possible rules infra ctions by I ona men’ s 15 basketba ll play ers a nd coac hes. Ruland and O’ Driscoll, but not Holcomb or C h i l es, were 16 interviewe d in connec tion with that investi g ation. 17 On J une 25, 2004, B rother L iguor i was quoted in a loc al newspa per a s saying that he was 18 “not a ha

ppy campe r.” F rom his vantag e point, the men’s ba sketball prog ram “ seem[ed] to be 19 g oing f

rom bad to worse .” 1- 9 -

D. B re nn an’ s Re po rt s 1

2 I n Marc h 2004, afte r t he conclusion of t he 2003-2004 season, Bre nnan was asked a s Direc tor 3 of Athletics by

L iguor i an d t h e I o n a Board of Tr ustees to pre pare a wr itten report e valuatingthe 4 men’s baske tball prog ram, a nd to make re commendations for ref orm. Br ennan submi t ted two 5 repor

ts: a preliminary

repor t, and a f inal repor t. I n the cour s e o f preparingthe re ports, Br ennan 6 c on su lte d Pe tr ic c ion e on se ve ra l oc c a sio ns . B re nn an pre se nte d ea c h of his re po rt s to the fo ur pe op le 7 who ultimately made the termination decision. These four were: (1) the colleg e President, B rother 8 L iguor i; and his three vice Presidents: (2) Petric cione ( Vice Pre sident for Adva nceme nt and Alumni 9 Affa irs), (3) Sist er Ma rie Thor nton (Vice President for F inance ), and ( 4) Dr. War ren Rosenbe rg(the 10 colleg e’s Provost). 11 Br ennan’ s repor ts noted a “[l] ack of

team motivation,” and stated that the Gae ls were 12 “[c]onsi stently

outperfor med by teams with less talent.” He f ound that there was “ [p] oor team and 13 ind ivi du a l a c a de mic pe rf or manc e .” Th e “ [n]um

be r o ne pr ob le m” wi th t he me n’ s b a sk e tba ll 14 prog ram wa s “[f]undamental lack of discipline.” Initially , Br ennan sug g ested thre e possible cour ses 1 5 of

a c ti o nto s h ak e u

p th e te am a

n d g e t i t b a c k

o ntr a c k

. F ir s t, th e c o ll e g e mi g h t f ir e th e e n ti re 16 c oa c hin g sta ff

, in c lud ingRul and . G ive n th e size of Rul and ’s c on tr a c t, h ow e ve r, thi s w ou ld have c os t 17 the colleg e a ve ry larg e amount of mone y , and no-one seems to have seriously considere d the 1 8 p o s s i b i l i t y . Br en n an p re s en t eda s ec o n d o p t i o n : fi ri n g al l th re e a s s i s t an tco ac h es . T h i rd , th e C o l l ege 19 could kee p the cur rent c oachingstaff in plac e. 20 I n late Mar ch 2004, B ren n an s u b m i tted a new repor t, offer ing f

inal proposals for 21 consideration. This f inal repor t ultimately counsele d ag ainst firing the assistant coac hes; to do so,- 10 - 1 Br ennan stated, would be akin to “only . . . cutting of

f appe n d age s t o t h e is sue while the c ore 2 re ma ins .” I n ad dit ion to the thr e e op tio ns me nti on e d a bo ve , B re nn an a dd e d w hat he sa id w a s h is 3 pref

err ed option: leave the coac hing sta ff intac t, place them on notice that there mig ht be per sonnel 4 chang es as e arly

as Jul y if the situation did not im prove, a nd i m pose as a

condition of continued 5 e mpl oy

me nt a twe nty -f

ive -p oint “strate g ic pla

n” to imp ro ve the pr og ra

m both on and of

f t he c ourt

. 6 Br ennan’ s repor ts made no spec ific cr iticisms of Ho lc o mb , b ut d id criticize the coa chingstaff 7 as a whole, saying that they “[c]an’t g et along ,” that they wer e “[p]oor polit ically ,” and that they 8 “[d] o not w ork as hard a s they need to make this progr am succ essful.” The one assistant coa ch who 9 w a s me n ti o n e d

s p e c if ic a ll y in B r e n n an ’ s r e p o rts w a s O ’ D r is c o ll , o f w h o m B r e n n anw r o te , “ Rob 10 O’Dr iscoll works very well with others ac ross campus.” 11

E. The Te rmination Dec ision 12

13 Th e fi na l r e po rt wa s p re se nte d to the Pr e sid e nt a nd Vi c e Pr e sid e nts by

c on fe re nc e c a ll. 14 Pe tr ic c ion e and

B re nn an s ay

tha t, d ur ingthi s c a ll, th ey

su pp or te d th e latte r’ s f

ourt h p ro po sa l: 1 5 re ta in in g th e s ta f f , p u tt in g th e m o nn o ti c e , an d im p le me n ti n g th e 2 5

- p o int p r o g r am. N o th in g w as 16 decide d during the initial confer ence call. 17 The de cision to terminate the e mploy ment of Holcomb a

nd Chiles was rea ched in a later 18 confe renc e involving the President and thre e Vice Presidents. Ther e wa s n o fo rm al vote; afte r a 19 discussion, all four re ache d a collec tive decision. Whil e it is appare nt that the decision to kee p 20 Ruland in post was larg ely based o n financ ial rea sons, there is no conte mporane ous rec ord of the 2 1 r e a s o n s f

o r r e t a i n i n g O ’ D r i s c o l l w h i l e f i r i n g H o l c o mb an d C h i l e s . L a t e r , i nd e p o s i t i o nt e s t i m o n y,- 11 - 1 L iguor i said that he fe lt “more dra stic action” w as nee ded than that f avored by Br ennan. “ Rob 2 O’ Dr isc oll wa s a sk e d to sta y ,” L iguo ri say s, “ a s a

c onne c tio n to the re st o f the pr og ra m and a lso 3 beca

use the athletics direc tor thought he was doing an adequate job which I specific ally

reme mber 4 rea ding in [Br ennan’ s repor t] .” 5 The re cord is equivoc al as to whe ther B renna n had any role in the ultimate dec ision to fire 6 Holcomb and Chiles and r etain O’ Driscoll; the colleg e maintains that the final determination wa s 7 prese nted to Br ennan a s a fai t ac c om pli

. Ac c or din g to B re nn an him se lf , ho we ve r, he ha d, a t so me 8 stag e in the process, a fac e-to-f ace meetingwith Brothe r L iguor i, at which L iguor i informed him that 9 two of the assistant coac hes would be fired. Br ennan sa y s that he and L iguor i then “discussed that 10 when you make a chang e like this, ther e neede d to be someone in place to ke ep the pr og ram moving 11 forwa

rd, to be with the kids, to make sure that things wer e being attended to, a nd in my opinion the 12 best person to c arr y that out was Rob O’Dr iscoll.” This t es t i m o n y might be r ead to sug g est that 13 Br ennan ha d a hand in de ciding who exactly wo u l d b e as ked to leave . L ater in his deposition, 14 Br ennan stated that “in his r ole on the coac hing staff [O’Driscoll] wa s the one who w as ca rry ing out 15 his duties to the best of his ability .” I n a meeting with Ruland at which B renna n transmitted to an 16 ang ry

Ruland the decision rea ched by the President and the three Vice Presidents, Br ennan de fende d 17 it f

ully , acc ording to notes taken by Br ennan. When Ruland asked him why Holcomb was c hosen 18 to leave , Br ennan a ppare ntly replied: “ I n my

evaluation [ Holcomb and Chiles] have not provided you 19 the pr op e r le ve l of su pp or t that y ou and our ba sk e tba ll pr og ra m ne e d to be su c c e ssf

ul” (e mph a sis 20 added)

. 21 Holcomb was asked to r esig n; he re fused, a nd was ter

minated by

letter dated May

14, 2004. 2 2 T o n y C h i l e s w a s a l s o a s k e d t o r e s i g n ; h e c h o s e t o d o s o a ts o m e p o i n ti nM ay.- 12 - 1

F . Su

bs e qu e nt D e ve lop me nts 2

3 J ust af

t er the termination dec isions were r eac hed, the NCAAinformed the c olleg e of the 4 re s u lt s o f

it s inv e s ti g a ti o n , in d ic a ti n g th a t t h e me n ’ s b a s k e tb a ll p r o g r am w a s g u il ty o f s ever al 5 “sec ondary

violations” of the Association’s rules, none of which re l at ed to the Goa l Club. The 6 NCAA is s u ed i t s repor t, attributing one of the violations to O’Drisc oll, and blaming none on 7 Holcomb or Chiles. The r eport c ited O’Dr iscoll for moving the per sonal belong ings of one of the 8 play ers f

rom a dorm to O’ Driscoll’s g ara g e. 9 Thoug h the colleg e wanted to ke ep O’Dr iscoll, he was offe red a position as First Assistant 10 Coach at Marist, and he took it. The c olleg e hire d three coac hes to repla ce H olcomb, Chiles, and 11 O’Dr iscoll, one of whom wa s Afric an-A merica n. 12

13 II. Th e Distr ict Court ’s Dec ision

14 Holcomb broug ht suit on J anuar y 25, 2005. After

discovery , the colleg e moved f or summary 15 judgme nt, and the district cour t gr anted the motion. Holcomb v. Iona College , No. 05 Civ. 0848 16 CM, 2006 W L1982764 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2006 ). J u d ge M cM ahon ana ly zed the case under the 17 McD onnell Douglas fra mework, but c oncluded i n t h e end that no rea sonable jury could favor 18 Ho lc omb on

the me ri ts o f h is s uit . E ve n if Pe tr ic c ion e and B re nn an ha d pr e vio us ly e ng a g e d in

ra c ist 19 conduct, Holc omb “ha[d] not established any fac ts that link t hese alleg ed rac ist tende ncies . . . to the 20 administration’s evaluation of the basketba ll prog ram.” Id. at *10. Holcomb, t he dis trict court he ld,- 13 - 1 had produc ed “no e vidence ” that his f iring was the product of improper discriminatory

motives. Id. 2 at *13.

3 J udg ment for the c olleg e wa s entere d on J uly 17, 2006. This appea l followed.

4

D I S CUS S I ON 5 Summary

judgme nt is appropriate if there is no ge nuine issue as to a ny materia l f

act a nd the 6 7 moving pa

rty is entitled t o judgme nt as a matter of law. F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The pa rty moving 8 for summary

judgme nt is initially responsible for demonstrating the abse nce of a g enuine issue of 9 materia l fac t. Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 47 7 U. S. 31 7, 32 3 (1 98 6)

. Th e n the onus sh if ts t o th e pa

rt y 10 resisting summary judgme nt to present evide nce suf ficient to satisfy

ever y element of the claim. The 11 non-m o v in g

p a r ty is require d to “g o beyond the pleading s” and “ desig nate spe cific f acts showingthat 12 there is a g enuine issue f or trial.” Id . at 32 4 ( qu ota tio n ma rk s o mitte d) ; se e als o A nd e rso n v . Li be rty 13 Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) . But in asse ssing the r ecor d to determine whether there 14 is a g enuine issue to be tried a s to any materia l fac t, the court is re quired to re solve all ambig uities 15 and dra

w all permissible fac tual infere nces in favor of the pa rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt 16 is sought. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 255. On appeal from a decision to g rant summary judgme nt, we 17 re vie w the re c or d de no vo to de te rm ine wh e the r g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t e xist r e qu ir inga

tr ia l. 18 Morales v. Q uintel Entm’t, Inc. , 249 F.3d 115, 121 ( 2d Cir. 2001). 19 We ha

ve repe atedly expressed the need for caution about g ranting summary judgme nt to an 20 employ er in a discrimination case wher e, as here, the merits turn on a dispute as to the e mploy er’ s- 14 - 1 intent. See Schwapp v. T o w n of Avon , 118 F.3d 106, 110 ( 2d Cir. 1997); Gallo v. Prudential 2 Re sid e nti al S e rv s. , Lt d. P’ sh ip , 2 2 F .3 d 1 21 9, 12 24 (2 d Ci r. 19 94 ); Meiri v. Dac on, 759 F.2d 989, 3 998 (2d Cir. 1985). Where an employ er ha s acte d with discriminatory intent, direct e vidence of that 4 intent will only

rar ely be ava ilable, so that “a ffidavits and de positions m ust be ca ref ully scrutinized 5 for c ircu m s t an tial proof which, if believed, w ould show discrimination.” Ga llo , 22 F.3d at 1224. 6 Even in the discr imination contex t, however , a p l ai n t i ff must provide more than conc lusory 7 alleg ations to resist a motion for summary judgme nt. Se eMe iri

, 759 F.2d at 998. 8 Titl e V I I

o f th e Ci v il Ri g h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , a s r e le v an t, p r o v id e s th a t i t i s an“ un la w f ul 9 e mp lo y

me n t p r a c ti c e f

o r ane mp lo y e r

. . . to d is c h ar g e an y

in d iv id u a l .

. . b e c a

u s e o f s uch 10 individual’s rac e.” 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (1). In 1991, Congr ess amende d the statute to make cle ar 11 that “an unla

wful employ

ment prac tice is established whe n the complainingparty demonstrates that 12 ra c e . . . w a s a

mot ivatin g fa c tor

for any empl oy

me nt p ra c tic e , e ve n th ou g h o the r f a c tor s a lso 1 3 m o t i v a t e d

t h e p r a c t i c e . ” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( m )

. A ne mp l o y m e n td e c i s i o n , th e n , v i o l a t e s T i t l e V II 14 when it is “base d in whole or in p ar t on discrimination.” Fe ing old v . Ne w York, 366 F.3d 138, 152 15 (2d Cir. 2004) (e mphasis added) (quotin g S t er n v. Trs. of Col umbia Univ. , 131 F.3d 302, 312 ( 2d 16 Cir. 1997)). To avoid summar y judgme nt in an employ

ment discrimination case , “the plaintiff is not 17 require d to show that the emplo y er ’s proffere d rea sons were false or play ed no role in the 18 employ

ment decision, but only

that they wer e not the onl y rea sons and that the prohibited fa ctor wa s 19 at least one of the ‘motivating ’ fa ctors.” C r o n i n v. A et n a Life Ins. Co. , 46 F.3d 196, 203 ( 2d Cir. 20 19 95 ); se e als o Ho ltz , 258 F.3d at 78. 21 Holcomb has invoked the familiar “ burden- shifting” framework se t forth for T itle VI Icase s 22 by

the Supreme Court in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 793 (1973) a nd Te x as De p’ t.- 15 - 1 of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 4 5 0 U. S. 248 (1981). Under these c ases, the pla intiff bear s the 2 initial burden of establishing a prima f acie case of discrimination. McD onnell Douglas , 4 11 U. S. 3 at 802. I f the plaintiff does so, the burden shifts to the defe ndant to a rticulate “some leg itimate, non4 discriminatory rea son” for its action. Id. I f s uc h a re a so n is pr ov ide d, pla int if f m ay no lon g e r r e ly 5 on the pre sumption raised by th e p ri ma fa cie c ase, but may still preva il by

showing , without the 6 benef

it of the presumption, that the employ er’ s determination wa s in fact the r esult of ra cial 7 dis c ri min a tio n. “ Th e ult imate burd e n of pe rs ua din g the tr ie r o f f a c t th a t th e de fe nd ant i nte nti on a lly 8 discriminated ag ainst the plaintiff rema ins at a ll times with the plaintiff.” Burdine , 450 U.S. at 253. 9 F or

the re a so ns e xpla ine d b e low , w e fi nd , fir st, that Holc omb ha s e sta bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie 10 case of discrimination, and, sec ond, that the colleg e has pr oduced e vidence that it a cted f or a r ace 11 neutra l rea son. To t h at ex tent, we a g ree with the district court’s c onclusions. Unlike the district 12 c ourt , h ow e ve r, we fi nd that pla int if f ha s e sta bli sh e d g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t a s to the me ri ts 13 of his claim, and we there fore vacate the district court’s decision t o g rant summ ary judgme nt to the 14 colleg e. 15

16 I. P rim a F acie Case of Discrim ination

17 The burden of establishing a prim a facie case of alleg ed dis parate t reatment “is not onerous.” 18 Burdine , 450 U.S. at 253. A pl aintiff satisfies this burden if he or she i ntroduce s evidenc e that ra ises 19 a re asonable infere nce that the action take n by the employ er was based on an impermissible fac tor. 20 Holcomb must show: (1) that he be longe d to a protec ted class; (2) that he wa s qualified fo r the 21 po sit ion

he he ld; (3 ) t

hat he su ff

e re d a n a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio n; a

nd (4 ) t hat th e ad

ve rs e- 16 - 1 employ

m en t ac t i on occur

red unde r circ umstances g iving r ise to an infer ence of discriminatory 2 intent. Fe ingold, 366 F .3 d at 152

. Th e se c on d an d thir d ele me nts of Ho lc omb ’s pr ima fa c ie c a se 3 are not in question; t here is no dispute that Holcomb was qualified to be an assistan t co ac h of the 4 basketba ll team, nor, obvious l y , co uld it be doubted that his firing was a n adver se employ

ment 5 action. The first and four th elements, howe ver, r equire further analy sis. 6

A. Me mbe rs hip in A Pr ote c te d Cl a ss 7

8 Holcomb alleg es that he was discriminated ag ainst, not solely beca use of his own ra ce, but 9 as a r esult of his ma rriag e to a black woman. This Court has never ruled on the que stion of whether 10 Title VI I applies in these c ircumstance s. We resolve that que stion today , and hold that an e mploy er 11 may

violate Title VI Iif it takes ac tion ag ainst an employ ee be cause of the employ ee’ s association 12 with a per son of another rac e. 13 One of the first ca ses to addre ss the question, Ripp v. Dobbs House s,Inc. , 366 F. Supp. 205, 14 208-09 (N.D . Ala. 1973), r eac hed the opposite c onclusion. There , a white employ ee c laimed that 15 he wa s discharg ed bec ause of his association with black employ ees. The court decide d the plaintiff’s 16 claim was not c og nizable under the statute. It relied for this conclusion on the text of Tit le VI Iitself, 17 which prohibits discriminatory action ag ainst an individual “ beca use of such individual’s race .” 42 18 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a ) ( em p h asi s added) . On this view, Title VI Idoes not help those who suff er 19 adver se employ

ment action as a r esult of association with persons of another rac e. See also Adams 20 v. Gov ernor’s Comm. on Postsec ondary Educ. , No. C80-624A, 1981 U.S. Dist. L exis 15346 at *8-9 21 (N .D . G a . Se pt. 3, 19 81 ) ( re je c tin g a c la im b y a whit e man mar rie d to a

bla c k w oma

n, be c a us e- 17 - 1 “[n] either the lang uag e of the sta t u t e nor its l eg islative history supports a ca

use of a ction for 2 discrimination ag ainst a per son beca use of his re lationship to persons of another rac e.”)

. 3 We r e

je c t th is re str ic tiv e re a din g of Ti tle VI I . T he re a so n is sim ple : w he re an e mpl oy e e is 4 sub

je c te d to adver se ac tion because an employ er disappr oves of inter rac ial association, the e mploy ee 5 su ff

e rs dis c ri min a tio n b e c a

us e of the e mpl oy e e ’s own ra c e . A ll the dis tr ic t judg e s in this c ir c uit to 6 consi d er t h e q u estion, including the district court in this case, ha ve re ache d that conclusion. 7 Holcomb , 2 00 6 WL 19 82 76 4 at *9 ; Rosenblat t v. B i vo n a &Cohen , P. C. , 946 F. Supp. 298, 300 8 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ( “Plaintiff has a lleg ed discrimination as a result of his marr iag e to a blac k woman. 9 Ha d h e be e n b la c k, his marr ia g e wo uld no t ha ve be e n inter rac ia l. T he re fo re , inhe re nt i n h is 1 0 complaint is th e a s s e rti o nth a t h e h a s s u f f e r e d r a c ia l d is c r im in a ti o nb a s e d o nh is o w nr a c e . ” ); 11 W

hit ne yv . G re ate r N. Y

. Co rp . o f Se v e nth -D ay

Ad v e nti sts , 401 F. Supp. 1363, 1366 ( S.D.N.Y. 1975). 12 The Fifth, Six th, and Eleve nth Circuits ag ree . Deffenbaugh- W illiams v.W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 156 13 F.3d 581, 589 ( 5th Cir. 1998), v ac ate d in pa rt on ot her gro un ds by W ill iam s v . W

al- Ma rt S tor es, 14 Inc. , 182 F.3d 333 ( 5th Cir. 1999) (“Title VI I prohibits discrimination in employ ment premised on 15 an inte rr a c ia l r e latio ns hip .” ); Te tro v . E lli ott Po ph am Po nti ac, O lds mo bile, B uic k & GM C Tru c k s, 16 Inc. , 173 F.3d 988, 994- 95 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding Title VI Iapplicable to alleg ation that employ ee 17 su ff

e re d d isc ri min a tio n b e c a

us e he ha d a

bir a c ia l da

ug hte r) ; Pa rr v . W

oo dm e n o f th e W or ld L ifeIn s. 18 Co. , 791 F.2d 888, 892 ( 11th Cir. 1986) (“Where a plaintiff c laims discrimination b as ed upon an 19 int e rr a c ia l ma

rr ia g e or a sso c iatio n, he a lle g e s, by de fi nit ion , that he ha s b e e n d isc ri min a te d a g a ins t 20 beca

use of his rac e.”)

. 21 Acc ording ly , we f ind that Ho lcomb, in claiming that he suffe red a n adver se employ

ment 22 a c tio n b e c a

us e of his int e rr a c ia l ma

rr ia g e , h a s a lle g e d dis c ri min a tio n a s a re su lt o f h is m e mbe rs hip- 18 - 1 i na

p r o t e c t e d c l a s s u n d e r

T i t l e V II. 2

B. Circ umstances GivingRise to an I nfer ence of Discr imination 3

4 To complete his prima f acie case , plaintiff must introduce evidenc e that he w as terminate d 5 un de r c ir c ums tanc e s w hic h g ive ri se to a n in fe renc e of un lawf

ul d isc ri min a tio n. Dr awi nga ll 6 pe rm iss ibl e fa c tua l in fe re nc e s in pla int if f’ s f avo r, we fi nd th at the e vid e nc e a dd uc e d b y Ho lc omb 7 comforta

bly meets this low threshold, which the Supre me Court has desc ribed a s “minimal.” St. 8 Mary’

s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993). 9 The c olleg e dec ided to f ire Holcomb, a white man marrie d to a black w oman, and Chiles, a 10 black man, while reta ining O’ Driscoll, a white m an who was not in an interra cial re lationship. 11 Moreove r, it is plain that Bre nnan and Petriccione both knew that Holcomb was marrie d to a black 12 woman, and the rec ord sug g ests that both Bre nnan and Petr iccione pla y ed a role in the ter

mination 13 decision. F or ea ch of the se men, fina lly , Holcomb has a dduced e vidence of ra cially improper 14 motives. As further detailed below, the rec ord permits an infere nce that Br ennan soug ht to reduce 15 Afric an-A merica n prese nce at basketball prog ram e vents for the sake o f al u m ni relations and 16 fundra ising. F rom this perspec tive, it would make sense f or B renna n to w ant to keep O’ Driscoll, as 17 the only white member of the staff without a black g irlfriend or spouse, rathe r than Holcomb. And 18 in the case of Petricc ione, there is clear ly evidenc e in the re cord indicat i n g h i s d isapproval of 19 Ho lc omb ’s marr ia g e to a bla c k w oma

n, and , in deed , of

Pe tr ic c ion e ’s wi lli ng ne ss t o a c t on his 20 disapproval by

insulti ng Holcomb in public.- 19 - 1 The fa ct that the college decide d to keep Ruland, who w as also in an inter rac ial relationship, 2 does not allay

the suspicion that the firings were gr ounded in an ill eg itimate motive. I t was ag ree d 3 a ll a

ro un d th a t Ru land

wa s si mpl y

too e xpe ns ive to f

ir e , w ithov e r f

ive y e ars le ft

on his c on tr a c t, 4 wh e the r o r n ot he wa s in a re latio ns hip wi th a bla c k w oma

n. At the pr ima

fa c ie sta g e , th e n, the se 5 circ umstances are more t han sufficient to support an inferenc e that Holcomb was terminated on the 6 basis of his interra cial mar riag e. * * * * * 7 8 Ac c or din g ly , we a g re e wi th the dis tr ic t c ourt that Ho lc omb ha s e sta bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie c a se 9 o f r a c e - b a s e d

e mp l o y m e n td i s c r i m i n a t i o nun d e r T i t l e V II. 10

11 II. Non-Discrim inatory Reason

12 Sin c e pla int if f h a s ma de out a prim a fa c ie c a se of dis c ri min a tio n, the c oll e g e mus t, i f i t is to 13 shift the burden back to pla intiff, produce evidenc e that Holcomb wa s terminated “ for a leg itimate, 14 nondiscriminatory rea son.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 2 5 4

. W e find that de fenda nt has produce d 15 evidenc e of a

rac e-ne utral re ason. 16 As an initial matter, ther e is ample e vidence that I ona had g ood rea son to make some chang es 17 to i ts me n’ s ba sk e tba ll pr og ra m. Th e te am wa s do ing re lativ e ly po or ly on the c ourt , th e a c a de mic 18 perf

ormanc e of its play ers wa s disconcer ting, the play ers and coac hes were the subject of an NCAA 19 investigation, and the colleg e face d criticism from fa ns and in the loca l press. The c olleg e, howe ver, 20 cannot shift the bur den bac k to Holcomb by rel y i n g o n t h e need to ref orm the prog ram in the- 20 - 1 abstrac t. Rather, def endant must provide a

non-discriminatory

rea son for the pa

rticular c ourse of 2 action it c hose: to f ire the white assistant coac h who was marrie d to a black woman, alongwith the 3 black c oach, while deciding at the same time to retain the white c oach who was not in an interr acia l 4 relationship. 5 As no te d a bo ve , th e e vid e nc e is s ome wh a t sc ant regardi ng the c oll e g e ’s re a so ns fo r i ts 6 ultimate decision. The r ecor d, howeve r, does c ontain evidenc e to support a non- discriminatory 7 explanation fo r t h e d ecision to remove Holcomb and Chiles, while kee ping O ’Drisc oll in place. 8 B r o t h e r

L i g u o r i t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e c h o s e t o r e t a i no n e o f th e th r e e c o a c h e s f

o r th e s ak e o f

c o n t i nu i ty, 9 and

that he se le c te d O’ Dr isc oll be c a us e he ha d re a d in B re nn an’ s re po rt s that O’ Dr isc oll wo rk e d w e ll 1 0 with othe r

d e p artm e n ts

. Si mi la

r ly , B r e n n anc la im s th a t h e d is c u s s e d w it hL igu o r i t

h e w is d o m of 11 keeping at least one of the three assistant coac hes. B renna n say s that he stated his opinion to L iguor i 12 that, of the thre e assistants, O’D riscoll was doingthe best job. 13 I t is not our task, at the second sta g e of the McD onnell Douglas fr am ework, to assess the 14 c re dib ili ty

of the se wi tne sse s; n or

is it our ro le to de te rm ine wh e the r t he c oll e g e ’s e xplanatio n o f i ts 15 action is convincing

. Id. I nstead, we ask whe ther de fenda nt has introduced e vidence that, “ taken 16 as true , would pe rm it the conc lusion that there wa s a nondiscriminatory rea son.” St. Mary’s , 509 17 U.S at 509. This test is s at isfied by the testimony

of L iguor i and B renna

n that they

rea ched the 18 decision on ra ce- neutra l grounds. Acc ording ly , we find that defe ndant has succ essfully discharg ed 19 its burden of produc tion under the sec ond prongof McD onnell Douglas

. 20I n light of Cong ress’s 1991 a mendments to Title V I I , the Supreme Court ha s square ly reje cted the 3 view that direc t e vidence of discrimination is required in mix ed-motive c ases. Dese rt Palace, Inc

. v . Co sta , 539 U.S. 90, 92 (2003)

. - 21 - 1 III. Ge nui ne Issues of Mate rial F act

2 B e c a

us e I on a ha s p ro du c e d e vid e nc e that it a c te d f or a no n- dis c ri min a tor

y re a so n, Ho lc omb 3 may

no longe r re ly

on the pre sumption of discrimination raised by the prima fa cie c ase. Burdine , 4 4 5 0 U

. S

. a t25 5- 56 ; St. Mary’s , 509 U.S. at 510-11. We now ask whe ther, without the aid of the 5 presumption, Holcomb has ra ised sufficie nt evidenc e upon which a rea sonable jury could conc lude 6 by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the de cision to fire him was ba sed, at least in part, on the 7 fac t that his wife was bla ck. 8 Direc t evidence of discrimination, “a smoking gun,” is ty

pically unavailable , R osen v. 9 Thornburgh , 9 28 F .2 d 52 8, 53 3 (2 d Cir

. 19 91 ), and thi s c a se is no e xce pti on to t hat pa tte rn . It is we ll 10 settled, howeve r, that employ ment discrimination plaintiffs are entitled to rely on circ u m stantial 11 e vid e nc e . I n th is r e sp e c t, w e have no te d the ne e d to be “a le rt to t he fa c t th a t e mpl oy e rs are ra re ly 3 12 so c oo pe rativ e a s to inc lud e a no tatio n in the pe rs onne l file that the fi ri ngis f or a re a so n e xpre ssl y 13 forb i d d en b y l aw.” Ramseur v . Chase Manhattan Bank, 865 F.2d 460, 464- 65 (2d Cir. 1989) 14 (quotation marks omitted). 15 Normally , in building a circumstantial ca se, employ ment discrimination plaintiffs contend, 16 a s H olc omb do e s h e re , th a t th e e mpl oy e r’ s st a te d r e a so n f or th e a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio n is 17 e nti re ly

pr e te xtua l. A nd

in m any c a se s, a sh owi ng of

pr e te xt, w he n c omb ine d w itha pr ima fa c ie 18 case of discrimination, w ill be enoug h to pe rmit a rational finde r of f act to dec ide that the dec ision 19 was motivated by an improper

motive. Ree ves v . Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133,- 22 - 1 14 7 ( 20 00 ); see also id. at 154 (Ginsburg, J., concurr ing) (“[E]vidence sug g esting that a def endant 2 a c c us e d o f i lle g a l di sc ri min a tio n ha s cho se n to gi ve a fa lse e xplanatio n f or its a c tio ns g ive s r ise to 3 a ratio na l in fe re nc e that th e de fe nd ant c ou ld b e ma sk ingits a c tua l, ill e g a l mo tiv a tio n. ” ). I n th is 4 re sp e c t, w e ob se rv e that th e co lle g e ’s state d r e a so ns fo r c ho os ingO’ Dr isc oll , th ou g h s uf fi c ie nt t o 5 shift the burden back to H olcomb, are by no means overwhelming. That O’Dr iscoll, who was the 6 on ly

a ssi sta nt c oa c h und e r i nv e sti g a tio n b y the NC AA , “ wo rk [ed ] ve ry we ll w ithoth ers a c ro ss 7 c ampu s” and

“ wa s d oin g an a de qu a te job ” are ha rd ly c omp e lli ngjus tif

ic a tio ns for ret a ini nghim 8 while firingHolcomb and Chiles. I n other words, a jury might we ll find that I ona’s e x planation was 9 pr e te xtua l. 10 I t is im portant to stress, moreove r, that a pla intiff who, like Holcomb, cla ims that the 11 e mpl oy e r a c te d w ithmixe d mo tiv e s is no t required to prove that the e mploy er’ s stated re ason wa s 12 a pre text

. A plaintiff alleg ing that an employ ment decision wa s motivated both by leg itimate and 13 illegitimate re asons may establish that the “imper missibl e fa ctor wa s a motivating f actor , without 14 proving that the employ er’ s proffe red e x planation was not some part of the employ er’ s motivation.” 15 Fields v. N. Y

. State Office of

Mental Retardati on & Dev elopmental Disabilities , 115 F.3d 116, 120 16 (2 d Ci r. 19 97 ) ( qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) ; see also G ordon v. N.Y . City Bd. of Educ. , 232 F.3d 111, 17 117 (2d Cir. 2000) (“ I t i s . . . n o w s et tled that a plaintiff in a T itle VI Iaction nee d not disprove a 18 defe ndant’s prof

fer ed rationale for its adve rse a ctions in order to pre vail.”). 19 I n maintaining that summary judgme nt is appropriate, the colleg e re lies heavily on the fa ct 20 that Ru land , w ho wa s a lso in a n inte rr a c ia l r e latio ns hip, was ret aine d a s H e a d Co a c h o f t he te am. 21 A re asonable jury , howeve r, could c onclude that this fac t is co n s i stent with a finding of ra cial 22 discrimination with respe ct t o Holcomb’s firing. Indeed, it is evident that, for whateve r re ason, atWe note, in passing, that Title VI I , as ame nded by the Civil R ights Ac t of 1991, provides a limited 4 aff irmati v e defe nse in so-ca lled “mix ed motive” c ases. See D esert Palace , 539 U.S. at 94-95. Where a n employ er is found to have violated the statute, it has t he opportunity to demonstrate, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that it “would have taken the sam e ac t i o n in the absenc e of the impermissible moti vating fac tor.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5( g )(2) (B ). I f the de fenda nt me e ts th is b u

rden, the court may not a

war d damag es or order reinstateme nt, but may still order

decla ratory relief and some forms of injunctive r elief. Id

.

- 23 - 1 least so m e of the re levant ac tors would have pr efe rre d to terminate Ruland. As noted a bove, 2 h o w e v e r , r e m o v i n gR u l an d w o u l d h av e i mp o s e d

ane n o r m o u s f i n a n c i a l b ur d e no nt h e c o l l e g e . If 3 part of the colleg e’s motivation was to diminish black and interr acia l presenc e on the coa chingstaff, 4 then, g iven that Ruland wa s too costly to fire, a jury could re adily

conclude that the re tention of 5 O’Dr iscoll was motivated, at lea st in part, on the desire to keep the only assistant coac h who was 6 both white and not in an interr acia l relationship. 7 We emphasize that Holcomb has adduc ed little evidence to sugg est that he wa s terminated 8 so le ly

be c a us e his wi fe wa s b la c k. But he ne e ds on ly to p ro ve that th e de c isi on wa s p art ly

so 9 motivated to preva il on the ultim ate mer its of his claim. Surveying the aff idavits and deposition 4 10 testimony

produce d by

the par ties, we c onclude that th ere is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t to be 11 tried in this case . I n short, a fa ct-finde r could find on this rec ord (1) that Br ennan a nd/or Petriccione 12 pref

err ed to re move Holcomb bec ause his wife was black; and (2) that Br ennan a nd/or Petriccione 13 play ed a decisive role in the termination dec ision. A reasona ble jury could favor plaintiff’s ve rsion 14 of

e ve nts on e a c h of the se tw o ste ps , an d the re by re a c h th e c on c lus ion that r a c e pla

y e d a n il le g iti mate 15 role in the c olleg e’s de cision. 16 Specifica lly , a re asonable jury could first find that B renna n, Petriccione , or both, possessed 17 a ra cial motive to discriminate ag ainst Holcomb. This is obvious i n the ca se of Petric cione, who w as- 24 - 1 a pp are ntl y in t he ha bit of makin g ra c ia lly

qu e sti on a

ble re mark s, and

wh o in pa rt ic ula r i s a lle g e d to 2 have made a strikingly rac ist rema rk t o Holcomb about him and his wife. In the ca se of B renna n, 3 a re asonable jury

m i gh t co n clude that he possessed a mor e subtle ra cial motive. Viewingthe 4 e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to H olc omb , and be ari ng in min d B re nn an’ s a pp are nt de sir e to 5 appea l to I ona’s mostly white alumni base, a rational finder of fac t could conclude t hat B renna n had 6 an inc en t i v e, for the purposes of a lumni relations, to mini miz e the number of Afr ican Ame rica

ns 7 i n v o l v edwi t ht h e b as k etb al l t ea m . S u ch a mo t i v e co u l d b e i n fe rr edfr o mBr en n an ’s d ec re e t h ath i gh 8 school students could no long er c ome to G oal Club events, a dec ision taken afte r a group of blac k 9 high sc hool students had attended. Thoug h a jury might credit Br ennan’ s stated rationale, that he 10 fea

red a n NCAA investig ation on the i ssue, a jury might ins tead determine that this ex planation was 11 prete x tual, taking into a ccount Br ennan’ s contempora neous order that neither Holcomb’s wife nor 12 Ruland’s g irlfriend should come to the events. A jury could re ly on these ex clusions, and on other 13 evid e nc e a tte sti ng to a ra c ia lly c ha rg e d a tmo sp he re surr ound ing the te am, to c on c lud e that, a t a 14 minimum , Br ennan w anted to maintain at least some non-Afr ican- Americ an pre sence on the team’ s 15 staff. 16 Second, a r easona ble jury could conc lude that the dec ision to t erminate Ho l comb was 1 7 i n fl u en ce d

b y Br en n an , b y

P et ri cc i o n e , o r b y

b o th , wo rk i n g s ep ar at el y o r t o get h er . T h e c o l l ege 18 contends that ther e is nothing in the r ecor d to show that Br ennan or Petriccione play ed a r ole in the 19 decision to selec t Holcomb for ter mination, and points to evidenc e in the rec ord that it was B rother 20 L iguor i, rather

than Br ennan or Petriccione , who actua lly made the de cision. But a T itle VI Iplaintiff 21 is entitled to succe ed, “even absent evidenc e of illegitimate bias on the part of t he ultimate dec ision 22 make r, so lon g a s the ind ivi du a l shown to hav e the imp e rm iss ibl e bia s p lay e d a me anin g fu l r ole in- 25 - 1 the . . . proc ess.” Bi c k e rst aff v . V as sa r Co ll. , 196 F .3 d 435 , 450 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ). He re , th e re is a mpl e 2 evidenc e fr om which a r easonable jury could infer

that Br ennan, Petr iccione, or both, play ed a 3 me anin g fu l r ole in t he deci si on

to t e rm inate Ho lc omb . B re nn an h ims e lf ha s te sti fi e d th a t he tol d 4 Br other L iguor i that O’Dr iscoll was the best of the three coac hes to reta in; Petriccione wa s one of 5 fo ur

a c tor s w ho ma de the fi na l f ir ingde c isi on s. Tr

ue , th e c oll e g e ha s p ro du c e d e vi den c e that, i f 6 g iven a f

ree hand, both B renna

n and Petricc ione would have pref err ed not to t er m i nate a

ny of the 7 a ssi sta

nt c oa c he s. B re nn an’ s re po rt re c omm e nd e d re te nti on of a ll thr e e , a

nd Pe tr ic c ion e c la ims to 8 have f

avore d the same course as an initial matter. B ut a re asonable jury could per fec tly

well ac cept 9 this e v id e n c e , an d s ti ll f in d th a t t h e te r mi n a ti o nd e c is io nw a s mo ti v a te d in p art b y r a c ial 10 discrimination. Once the decision was taken to fire two of t he coache s and retain one for the sake 1 1 of c o n ti nu it

y , B r e n n an o r Pe tr ic c io n e mi g h t w e ll h av e ur g e d th e s e le c ti o n o f O ’ D r isc oll out of 12 discriminatory

motives. This is, at least, an issue of fac t for the jury to decide. Arational trier of 13 fac t could, in other words, c onclude that, onc e the de cision was re ache d to retain the H ead Coa ch 14 and

on e of the thr e e a ssi sta

nt c oa c he s, B re nn an a

nd /or Pe tr ic c ion e ur g e d the se le c tio n of O’ Dr isc oll 15 ins te a d o f H olc omb , a nd tha t at lea st one of

the m di d s o in

pa rt fo r r a c ia lly

dis c ri min a tor

y re a so ns . 16 I n arguing that its m otives were pure, the defe ndant also notes t h at o n e of the thre e new 17 coac hes it hire d to w ork under Ruland afte r the depar tures of Holcomb, Chiles, and O’D riscoll was 1 8 Af

ri c a n- A m e r i c an . A j u r

y m i g h t c o un t th i s a s e v i d e n c e th a t th e d e f e n d an t d i d n o t b a s e its 19 termination dec ision on t h e fa ct that Holcomb’s wif e wa s Afric an-A merica

n. Then a g ain, a 20 rea sonable finde r of f act mig ht determine that the colleg e hire d a black coac h as a way of conc ealing 21 its prior dis crimination. Se e Go nz ale s v . P oli c e De

pt. , Ci ty of S an J os e, Ca l. , 9 01 F .2 d 7 58 , 7 62 (9 th 22 Cir. 1990) (“Curative measure s simply do not tend to prove that a prior violation did not occur .”).- 26 - 1 Al te rn a tiv e ly , th e jur y mig ht co nc lud e that th e re le va nt a c tor s w e re anim a te d, no t by ra c ism pe r se , 2 but instea d solely by their disapproval of interra cial relationships. Or, finally , the jury might ac cept 3 that the colleg e did not act with the moti ve of eliminating all Africa n-Amer icans fr om the prog ram’s 4 staff, but find that the college wanted never theless t o have at least one coac h who was ne ither blac k 5 nor in a

n interra cial relationship. I n eac h of these case s, a rea sonable jury could fi n dt h at the 6 termination dec ision was motivated, at least in par t, by the fac t that H olcomb was mar ried to a bla ck 7 woman. 8 I n eff

ect, the c olleg e asks us to we igh the evidenc e for and aga inst Holcomb’s theory , but that 9 is not our role whe n deter mining whe ther summary j u d gm en t is appropriate. The jury , of cour se, 10 will be expected to take the defe ndant’s contentions into acc ount in reac hing its ultimate conc lusion 11 as to whethe r Holcomb ha s established by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that his termination was 12 the re sult of rac ial discrimination. 13

C ONCL US I ON 14 15 There is suf ficient evidenc e in the rec ord to pe rmit a rea sonable jury to c onclude th at the 16 colleg e’s de cision to terminate Holcomb was based, at lea st in part, upon a ra cially discriminatory 17 motive. I n light of this disput ed issue of mater ial fac t, we VA CA TE the judg ment of the district 18 court, a

nd REMAND the ca se for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. 19 20