The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination recently approved an age-discrimination case submitted in 2006 by former Brandeis women's softball coach Mary Sullivan against the University. Sullivan told the Justice that the MCAD found "probable cause" in her claim of age discrimination. The controversy began in July of 2006 when the then-54-year-old Sullivan was fired and replaced by 28-year-old Jessica Johnson despite the fact that that year, Sullivan had coached the Judges to a turnaround season in which they won 11 more games than they had the past season. Johnson is currently in her third season as head coach. Sullivan's firing drew even more controversy because Athletic Director Sheryl Sousa '90, who had initiated Sullivan's termination, had played softball under Sullivan during her time at Brandeis. Sullivan was told that the reason behind her firing was that she had not met the standards required of her as coach.

In 2006, 59-year-old Cliff Hauptmann alleged age discrimination after being fired by the University after 14 years in the Office of Admissions and the Office of Communications.

"There have actually been very few age discrimination claims filed against the University in the past few years. . It is not unusual for such a large employer to be the subject of periodic employment claims. The University handles each case individually," Associate General Counsel Steven Locke said.

Sullivan filed her case to the MCAD alleging age discrimination in January 2007. In July 2009, Sullivan and the University received notification of the MCAD ruling, which found probable cause to credit Sullivan's allegations of age discrimination by the University. Legal procedure required both parties to attend a conciliation conference at the commissioner's office Aug. 19. Sullivan attended with her lawyer, Harold Litchtin, opposite Steven Locke from the Office of the General Counsel and Jean Eddy, vice president of Students and Enrollment.

"We both went to the meeting and nothing happened. Brandeis would not settle anything with me," Sullivan said. Locke explained in an e-mail to the Justice, "The University is defending the case and firmly believes that it did nothing wrong."

The case has now entered the first phase of the six-month discovery procedure. During this process, legal teams from both sides will begin the exchange of depositions and documentation. According to MCAD legal procedure published on their Web site, this process will additionally include "interrogatories to parties, subpoenas requiring the production of documents, papers and other tangible things."

The discovery procedure will conclude in mid-February, at which time, according to Locke, "MCAD will hold a certification conference to determine whether to certify the case to public hearing before an administrative hearing officer." Sullivan said the public hearing "is basically a minitrial."

Reflecting on the legal proceedings, Sullivan said, "I was hoping that once this ruling came down, and the probable cause was found to credit my allegations that, you know, they might want to settle instead of letting it continue. But they don't seem to want to. I mean, it's hard, it's been over three years and it's not easy to get through this, but I have to continue."

One of Sullivan's former players defended her coach. "We were really upset by it," said Evi Ullman '03. "I feel that I can no longer support the Athletics department. I don't feel comfortable giving money to the school. What happened was pretty unfair. That is how upsetting this was to me as an alum and as a player."



- Hannah Kirsch and Nashrah Rahman contributed reporting