$1.35 Million Awarded to Fired CSUF Coach : Courts: Jury finds Jim Huffman was terminated in retaliation for a lawsuit that saved women's volleyball.

By MIKE DiGIOVANNA

Feb. 9, 1994 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SANTA ANA — A jury awarded $1.35 million Tuesday to a former Cal State Fullerton coach who said he was unfairly fired after he fought and blocked the school’s effort to kill the women’s volleyball program in 1992.

The university contended it acted properly when it fired Jim Huffman. But he argued that it was retaliation for his sex-discrimination lawsuit in 1992 that saved women’s volleyball, forced changes in the school’s athletic policies and embarrassed the school. Huffman won 25 games and lost 80 during his three years as coach, but he is now 2-0 in legal battles against the school.

“I hope this case sends a clear message to coaches all across the U.S. that they can stand up for gender equity, for women’s rights,” said Kirk Boyd, one of Huffman’s attorneys. “And if they suffer any retribution for doing so, then they’ll be compensated.”

The $1.35-million award--$350,366 in projected financial losses and $1 million in non-economic damages--could grow today when the 10-woman, two-man jury reconvenes to determine punitive damages. Huffman is eligible for them because jurors determined that Fullerton Athletic Director Bill Shumard and Jack Bedell, vice president for academic affairs, had “acted with reckless disregard of, or callous indifference to,” Huffman’s First Amendment rights. Shumard is also found to have acted with “fraud, malice or oppression” in terminating Huffman.

University President Milton A. Gordon issued a brief statement Tuesday afternoon. “The outcome is disappointing because I believe the university acted reasonably and lawfully in ending Mr. Huffman’s employment,” Gordon said. “The personnel decision was based on employee performance and how the university could best build a successful athletics program. These are reasonable criteria, and I regret that the jury did not agree.”

Shumard, a defendant along with Gordon, Bedell, Cal State University Chancellor Barry Munitz and the CSU Board of Trustees, bore the brunt of the verdict.

He was the only defendant found guilty of the most serious offenses in the case--acting with malice and interfering, “through threats, intimidation or coercion,” with Huffman’s civil rights.

“The jury is saying that Shumard was primarily responsible for this retaliatory act, and that’s what we believe,” said Jared Huffman, Jim’s brother and attorney. “I think this case shows, as the gender equity suit did two years ago, that Bill Shumard has done a disservice to Cal State Fullerton.

“He was part of a discriminatory decision that got reversed by a court (in 1992), he fought it tooth and nail all the way, and then he lashed out against the person who led the charge on that lawsuit, a second blunder. He has cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars by his incompetent and bad-faith decisions,” the attorney said.

“I hope the president of the university reflects on his athletic administrative team and does some soul-searching, because the students of Cal State Fullerton and the taxpayers deserve better.”

Shumard, who was present for most of the three-week trial but was not in the courthouse Tuesday, could not be reached Tuesday evening.

Jim Huffman, who now works at an Anaheim sports apparel company and has not been able to land a coaching job since his March 23, 1992, firing, felt vindicated. The verdict was actually $150,000 more than the $1.2 million he was seeking.

Ironically, school officials turned down a November settlement offer of $350,000, according to Huffman’s attorneys.

“Regardless of the money, it’s so nice to win with magnitude,” Huffman said. “It was obvious the school was wrong. It was glaring , and the jury sent that message. I didn’t want them to get away with it.”

Huffman’s attorneys had to prove retaliation was a part of the decision to terminate him; the defense needed to show the school had legitimate reasons to do so.

Defense attorney Kevin Gerry argued that the decision to not renew Huffman’s contract was made in November or December, 1991, well before the school’s Jan. 28, 1992, decision to drop volleyball and the subsequent filing of Huffman’s gender-equity suit several days later.

Gerry claimed the school based the decision on the team’s poor record, academic problems, Huffman’s substandard fund-raising and NCAA violations that occurred in the volleyball program in 1990, a year before Shumard became athletic director.

Gerry further contended that when the school made the decision to drop volleyball because of financial problems, administrators felt it would be more “humane” to discontinue Huffman along with the sport, so his reputation and resume would not be tarnished by a firing.

Huffman’s attorneys argued that Fullerton administrators fired Huffman because of the gender-equity suit, and only when they realized they might have another lawsuit on their hands did they go back to Huffman’s personnel file and look for reasons to justify their decision.

Jurors were not allowed to discuss the case Tuesday, but Boyd thought Steve DiTolla, former Titan associate athletic director, provided key evidence. DiTolla testified that Shumard said during a Dec. 10, 1991, meeting that “while we have concerns, we are going to renew (Huffman’s) contract.”

Said Boyd: “That cuts to the heart of the case. If you believe DiTolla, you can’t believe their decision to terminate Jim was made in the fall of 1991.”

DiTolla also testified that at a March 20, 1992, meeting, Bedell said of Huffman: “We have to get rid of that son of a bitch. He’s caused this university enough aggravation.”

Huffman was fired on the next working day.

Ed Carroll, former Titan athletic director, former senior women’s administrator Leanne Grotke and several Big West Conference volleyball coaches testified that Fullerton volleyball, a perennial conference doormat, made drastic improvements under Huffman.

Carroll and Grotke said the 1990 NCAA violations were minor and not grounds for termination. They also testified that Huffman probably would not get another college coaching offer because of his reputation as a troublemaker.

“A young man who had worked 11 years to pursue his lifelong ambition of being a Division I head coach was treated in a very reprehensible way,” Jared Huffman said. “And because of his firing and the blackballing, he suffered what sports psychologists say is a loss of identity. That’s a very serious thing, tantamount to the loss of a family member.”

Costa Mesa sports psychologist Richard Lister testified on Huffman’s behalf, as did Dr. Joyce Pickersgill, an economic consultant who said Huffman would suffer economic damages of at least $800,000 if he could not return to Division I coaching. The jury did not agree with Pickersgill’s estimate but was generous in awarding damages for emotional distress.

“I’m surprised with both the amount of the damages and the proportion of the economic to non-economic damages, especially in light of the fact that the majority of the plaintiff’s evidence was directed toward economic damages,” Gerry said. “While we respect the jury’s opinion, we still disagree with the assessment of the evidence.”

Gerry said he will file two motions today, one for a new trial and one to have the award reduced. He said he didn’t know whether the school, which has access to a CSU insurance fund to pay jury awards such as this, would appeal.

Jim Huffman, meanwhile, was still wondering whether the verdict was worth the long legal struggle.

“I’m not saying the money won’t be nice, but two years of not sleeping, having those guys lie about you, not being able to do what you want to do . . . I’m not sure it’s worth it,” he said.

Huffman also doubted the verdict would enhance his coaching prospects.

“I’m sure (athletic directors) will think I got hosed, but I doubt they’ll hire me,” he said. “But I do think this will scare the hell out of athletic directors who mistreat coaches.”