Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JACLYN PISCITELLI
Plaintiff
Vs.
UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

OCTOBER 9, 2019

COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for money damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief as a
result of Defendant’s violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972,
20 U.S.C. §1681, et. seq.
JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, Jaclyn Piscitelli is a resident of the state of Connecticut who resides at
59 Mohawk Street, New Britain, CT 06053.
4. Defendant University of Saint Joseph (“Defendant” or “USJ”) is an institution of
higher education, located at 1678 Asylum Avenue, West Hartford, CT 06117. At
all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant employed more than 15
employees.

1

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 2 of 13

5. Defendant is an educational institution, as defined in 20 U.S.C. §1687, that
receives Federal financial assistance.
FACTS
6. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant on or about June 14, 2011 as
Assistant Registrar.
7. In 2015, Plaintiff was hired into the position of Associate Athletic Director.
8. As Associate Athletic Director, Plaintiff reported to Defendant’s Athletic Director
Bill Cardarelli, a male (“Cardarelli”).
9. Cardarelli held the position of Athletic Director at all relevant times to this action.
Cardarelli stepped down from the position and a new Athletic Director was hired
effective June 24, 2019.
10. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, she performed her job duties
and responsibilities diligently and completely and consistently received positive
performance evaluations.
11. Plaintiff’s lifelong dream and goal was to have a career in athletics at the
collegiate level and to work as an Athletic Director at a college or university.
12. Plaintiff’s employment as Associate Athletic Director represented a significant
achievement toward her professional goals. Plaintiff was passionate about her
job and devoted a great deal of her energy and focus to excelling in her work
performance.
13. In June 2017, Defendant announced that it would begin admitting males to its
undergraduate programs for the 2018-2019 academic year.
14. Prior to the fall of 2018, Defendant admitted only female undergraduate students.

2

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 3 of 13

15. Prior to academic year 2018-2019, Defendant’s intercollegiate athletics program
was comprised exclusively of women’s sports teams.
16. The transition of Defendant’s undergraduate programs to coeducational resulted
in the creation of men’s athletic teams and the hiring of coaching staff for these
new men’s teams.
17. In September 2018, Defendant hired James A. “Jim” Calhoun, a male
(“Calhoun”), as Head Coach of Defendant’s new men’s basketball team. Calhoun
had previously been employed as Head Coach of the University of Connecticut
men’s basketball team from 1986 until September 2012, during which time that
program came to national prominence and Calhoun became a celebrity.
18. Defendant gave Calhoun and his team preferential treatment including by
diverting resources from women’s sports to do so.
19. In September 2018, Defendant hired Glen Miller, a male, (“Miller”) as Assistant
Coach of Defendant’s new men’s basketball team.
20. Miller was hired at the request of Calhoun. Miller had previously worked as an
assistant coach to Calhoun prior to Calhoun’s retirement.
21. In her position as Associate Athletic Director under Cardarelli, Plaintiff performed
numerous duties and responsibilities of the Athletic Director, as Cardarelli was
spending less time working prior to his retirement from the position.
22. Beginning almost immediately after Calhoun and Miller began their full-time
employment with Defendant, the athletic department became a male-dominated,
hostile work environment.

3

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 4 of 13

23. Throughout the 2018-2019 academic year, Plaintiff had regular monthly one-onone meetings with Defendant’s Vice President of Student Affairs, Ken Bedini,
who is male, “(Bedini”) to discuss issues related to the athletic department and
Defendant’s athletic programs.
24. Plaintiff reported unfair treatment she had suffered since the Athletic Department
had become a male-dominated environment to Bedini on numerous occasions
throughout the 2018-2019 academic year.
25. Defendant permitted Calhoun and Miller to transform the work environment in the
athletic department to one that was openly hostile and disdainful toward women
and where women were treated as second class citizens.
26. Following the hiring of Calhoun and Miller, Plaintiff was treated differently and
less favorably than similarly situated male employees, was excluded from
participation in activities and denied benefits provided to male employees.
27. Prior to the 2018-2019 academic year, Plaintiff had a private office.
28. Beginning in the fall of 2018, Plaintiff was forced to share her office with two
newly-hired male coaches.
29. Beginning in fall 2018, Plaintiff’s male co-workers would frequently leave work to
play golf with Calhoun during the workday, while Plaintiff remained at the office.
30. Plaintiff told Bedini that the males in the department would go off to play golf
during the workday while she remained at the office.
31. In her position as Associate Athletic Director, Plaintiff held the role of Defendant’s
NCAA Compliance Coordinator. In this role, Plaintiff was required to participate in
weekly conference calls which were required to be confidential.

4

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 5 of 13

32. Prior to the fall of 2018, Plaintiff was able to participate in these calls from her
private office.
33. However, once Plaintiff was required to share her office with two new male
employees beginning in the fall of 2018, she was prevented from performing this
function of her position in her office.
34. Plaintiff asked Cardarelli where she could go to take these calls given the
confidential nature of them and her now-shared office. In response, Cardarelli
told Plaintiff to work in a locker room and take the calls there.
35. When Plaintiff then tried to discuss the situation further with Cardarelli and
requested to work from home for the short time each week she needed to be on
the NCAA Compliance conference, he walked out of the office, while Plaintiff was
still speaking to him, so he could introduce his daughter to Calhoun.
36. The addition of numerous new athletic teams in 2018 resulted in a significantly
increased workload for Plaintiff. Plaintiff requested assistance but was refused,
contrary to the treatment afforded to a similarly situated male employee.
37. In November, 2018, after Plaintiff had requested assistance and had been
refused it, Josh Ingham, a male, (“Ingham”) who held the position of Sports
Information Director with Defendant in its Athletic Department, Ingham was
granted a twenty (20) hour per week assistant, in addition to an intern and a
Graduate Assistant (“GA”) to assist him.
38. Plaintiff made requests of Cardarelli and Bedini on multiple occasions in the fall
of 2018 to discuss her workload and to request assistance. Despite her requests,
including a formal request for a GA, Plaintiff was given no assistance.

5

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 6 of 13

39. Despite being provided with significant assistance and resources, Ingham
routinely failed to meet deadlines or to complete his work responsibilities.
40. Plaintiff was treated less favorably than Ingham, including with regard to staff and
GA support.
41. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Ingham regularly failed to write and post
post-game stories related to women’s sports in a timely manner, giving priority to
men’s sports. Though Defendant’s administration was aware of this, no action
was taken against Ingham. On one occasion, the coach of the women’s swim
team, a female, complained that no post-meet story had been written about her
team. Cardarelli was dismissive toward this coach and later stated that she
“needs to calm down.”
42. Plaintiff advised Bedini of Ingham’s failure to perform his responsibilities relative
to women’s sports to no avail.
43. During this time of increased work load and the decline of Cardarelli’s
involvement, Plaintiff was under an enormous amount of stress due to her job
and work environment. She was working almost constantly with little time off, at
one point working 23 consecutive days.
44. Plaintiff had also worked 6 to 7 days a week for months before this without
earning any comp time.
45. Due to the stress and medical symptoms she was experiencing, Plaintiff sought
treatment with both her primary care physician and cardiologist for emotional
distress.

6

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 7 of 13

46. Bedini was aware that Plaintiff was performing aspects of Cardarelli’s job in
addition to her own. During one of their monthly meetings, Plaintiff specifically
discussed Cardarelli’s failure to perform the duties and responsibilities of the
Athletic Director position which resulted in Plaintiff having to perform those duties
and responsibilities.
47. Shortly after becoming full-time employees at USJ, Calhoun’s and Miller’s
treatment of Plaintiff became increasingly hostile and belittling.
48. Calhoun consistently and repeatedly told Plaintiff to open his office door for him,
even when he had his office keys in his hands, and without so much as a simple
“hello”.
49. There was an instance in which Calhoun knocked a number of single-serve
coffee “K-cups” onto the floor and stepped on them, creating a mess of coffee
grounds and packaging on the floor and made Plaintiff clean them up, stating that
if he made such a mess at home, his wife would clean up after him.
50. Cardarelli, who witnessed the K-cup incident, expressed to Plaintiff that he found
the situation amusing and that he did not see anything wrong with Calhoun’s
behavior. Cardarelli further asked Plaintiff, who Cardarelli was aware is not
married, whether she would clean up after her husband in similar circumstances.
51. On another occasion, Calhoun made a statement to Plaintiff, “Well, you’re
certainly hot”: using “hot” in its slang usage to mean physically or sexually
attractive.
52. Miller also made numerous inappropriate comments to Plaintiff, including
criticizing her for not being cheerful or smiling enough.

7

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 8 of 13

53. On one occasion when Plaintiff had a serious, professional demeanor, Miller said
to her “I’d swipe left too.” Miller’s statement was a reference to the popular dating
app “Tinder”, in which users may swipe left to reject further contact with another
user or swipe right to indicate sexual or romantic interest in another user.
54. Plaintiff felt this comment went too far and was too personal and considered
reporting it to Defendant’s Human Resources department, but feared retaliation,
particularly given Miller’s affiliation with Calhoun, who was favored and fawned
over by Defendant’s administrators because of his celebrity status.
55. Plaintiff reported the inappropriate and sexually harassing comments of Calhoun
and Miller to Cardarelli. No action was taken by Defendant in response to
Plaintiff’s complaints.
56. In October 2018, during a meeting in which Miller, Plaintiff and Bedini were
present, Miller expressed complaints about being expected to participate and
having his team participate in “Midnight Madness”, an event coordinated by
Plaintiff. Miller falsely claimed that he had not been informed of the Midnight
Madness event, implying that Plaintiff had failed to perform her duties.
57. Plaintiff had previously sent Miller emails regarding the event and meeting
invitations to discuss the event directly. Miller failed to respond or even
acknowledge Plaintiff’s communications.
58. When Plaintiff discussed this with Miller after the meeting, Miller stated that he
never read any of Plaintiff’s emails about the event or about anything else.
59. Plaintiff complained to Bedini about Miller’s conduct toward her related toward
the Midnight Madness event.

8

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 9 of 13

60. On two separate occasions in meetings, Miller asked Plaintiff questions he
already knew the answers to and then interrupted Plaintiff while she was
answering his questions.
61. Plaintiff complained to Bedini about Miller interrupting her and speaking over her
in meetings.
62. On or about June 12, 2019, a meeting was held for the purpose of bringing the
incoming Athletic Director up to speed on a broad range of issues related to
athletics. This meeting was attended by a large proportion of athletic staff,
including Plaintiff and Miller. During the meeting, Miller asked a question directed
at Plaintiff and again interrupted her as she was answering. After the meeting,
Miller approached Plaintiff and said “you’re feisty, I like it”, implying this turned
him on sexually, and then proceeded to attempt to engage Plaintiff in play
fighting by putting his fists up while asking “do you want to fight me?”
63. In late March 2019, it came to light that certain Title IX compliance requirements
that were the responsibility of Defendant’s Athletic Director had not been
performed by Cardarelli as required. Defendant’s administration contacted
Cardarelli about his failure to perform certain compliance measures. Cardarelli
deflected responsibility and directed Plaintiff and Mary Cooper (“Cooper’) to “fix
this.” Plaintiff had previously advised Defendant’s Director of Human Resources,
Deb Spencer (“Spencer”) of Cardarelli’s neglect of his job duties, particularly
those that related to maintenance of and compliance with policies.
64. On or about March 27, 2019, Plaintiff spoke to Spencer, regarding Cardarelli’s
failure to perform his duties relative to Title IX compliance and his insistence that

9

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 10 of 13

Plaintiff “fix” situations resulting from this failure. Spencer’s response was “I
know, but there is nothing I can do.”
65. Plaintiff reported to Bedini that male staff and coaches routinely ignored her and
would only communicate with Mr. Ingham or other male employees instead of
Plaintiff regarding matters within Plaintiff’s job duties.
66. In or about late May, early June 2019, Calhoun called Plaintiff into his office to
complain about Cooper. In this conversation, Calhoun twice referred to Cooper,
the only female employee working in the Athletic Department office other than
Plaintiff, as a “bitch” and said “when Mary asks me what to do with work I hand
her, I want to tell her to ‘shove it up her ass.’” Calhoun went on to say he was
ready to go to Defendant’s President to have Cooper fired.
67. Plaintiff promptly informed Cardarelli and Bedini of what Calhoun said regarding
Cooper. Plaintiff told Bedini she was informing him so that someone was aware
of Calhoun’s behavior and to seek his advice regarding Calhoun’s comments
about Cooper.
68. During the spring 2019 semester, Plaintiff stated to Bedini that the Athletic
Department had become a “boys club”.
69. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Plaintiff stated to Cardarelli that the
athletic department and the office environment had become a “boys club” since
the arrival of Calhoun and Miller.
70. Bedini took no action to investigate or remedy Plaintiff’s numerous complaints
and reports related to the negative and hostile treatment toward women in the
athletic department and related to the male-dominated sexist atmosphere that

10

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 11 of 13

had become pervasive over the 2018-2019 academic year. Instead, Bedini
ignored and brushed aside Plaintiff’s complaints, reacting in such a way as to
suggest that Plaintiff was causing trouble by opposing sexist conduct in the
workplace.
71. During the spring 2019 semester, Plaintiff expressed to Bedini that she was
considering seeking other employment because her working environment had
become almost intolerable given the “boys club” atmosphere that had taken over.
72. Rather than taking any action to remedy the hostile work environment, Bedini
instead told Plaintiff that she had “better not be [at USJ] come the fall” and on
another occasion said that she “better not fucking be here [the following
academic year]”.
73. On June 21, 2019, Plaintiff was summoned to a meeting with Spencer and Bedini
in which she was informed that her employment was terminated effective
immediately.
74. After being informed of the termination of her employment, Plaintiff asked if she
had done something wrong. Bedini responded “no, we’re moving in a new
direction.”
75. On the same day of Plaintiff’s termination, June 21, 2019, Ingham was promoted
to Assistant Athletic Director.
76. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff’s position was posted on Defendant’s website as an
open position.
77. Defendant has since hired a male to replace Plaintiff.

11

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 12 of 13

COUNT ONE: TITLE IX RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 20 U.S.C. §1681(a)
et. seq.
78. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by law pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1681(a) et.
seq. Specifically, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she reported
discriminatory conduct toward women, harassment of a sexual nature, and
harassment on the basis of sex to her supervisor, to Defendant’s Human
Resources department, and to Defendant’s Vice President for Student Affairs.
79. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s protected activity.
80. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s reporting of unfair treatment on the basis of sex as
demonstrated above and failed to take action or to investigate her complaints.
81. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse action, including but not limited to the
termination of her employment, in retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in protected
activity.
82. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of 20 U.S.C. §1681(a) et. seq.
when it terminated her employment.
83. As a direct result of Defendant’s violation of 20 U.S.C. §1681(a) et. seq., Plaintiff
has suffered loss of wages and benefits, past and future, and has suffered noneconomic damages in the nature of emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of
life’s activities. Plaintiff has also incurred attorneys’ fees and costs in vindicating
her rights under law.

12

 Case 3:19-cv-01589 Document 1 Filed 10/09/19 Page 13 of 13

DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims A TRIAL BY JURY and judgment against
Defendant as follows:
1. Compensatory damages for economic loss of wages and benefits of
employment pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) et seq. and federal common
law;
2. Equitable relief in the form of back pay and reinstatement pursuant to 20
U.S.C. § 1681(a) et seq. and federal common law;
3. Compensatory damages for non-economic loss of harm to reputation,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of profession, and loss of enjoyment of
life pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) et seq. and federal common law;
4. Punitive damages pursuant to pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) et seq. and
common law;
5. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ;
6. Pre-judgment interest; and
7. Such other further and different relief as this Court may deem just and
equitable.
PLAINTIFF,
JACLYN PISCITELLI
By:

/s/Magdalena B. Wiktor____
Magdalena B. Wiktor (ct28647)
Jacques J. Parenteau (ct09771)
Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC
105 Huntington Street
New London, CT 06320
Tel: (860) 442-2466
Fax: (860) 447-9206
E-mail: mwiktor@mppjustice.com
jparenteau@mppjustice.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiff

13