{shortcode-ab250e5dfbcf959453ebb19c8493f48d61f97dbe}
Harvard filed a reply in federal court defending its motion to dismiss former women’s ice hockey coach Katey Stone’s gender discrimination case on Thursday.
Harvard’s filing — the latest movement in the lawsuit since Stone asked a judge to block Harvard’s motion to dismiss three weeks ago — claimed that Stone’s affidavit did “nothing to cure the deficiencies raised in Harvard’s opening brief.”
Stone sued Harvard after she left her position as the team’s head coach last year following a 2023 University investigation into her coaching practices. The investigation came after several of Stone’s former players alleged that Stone created a toxic environment on the team, including downplaying mental health issues and using abusive language against athletes. The allegations were first reported by the Boston Globe.
Stone’s July lawsuit named Harvard and 50 other anonymous individuals, claiming gender discrimination and alleging that the events leading up to her departure would have been handled differently if she were a male coach.
In its most recent filing, Harvard argued that Stone’s discrimination and retaliation claims hinged on a single event: her departure from the University. But Harvard maintained that — even after her affidavit — Stone failed to demonstrate that she was forced out because of her gender or advocacy for equal pay, rather than the abuse allegations.
“The notion that Stone’s separation was motivated by discrimination or retaliation instead of this set of undisputed facts strains credulity,” they wrote.
Stone submitted her suit past the 300-day statute of limitations on discrimination and retaliation claims. Harvard claimed her bid for consideration — based on the argument that Harvard’s later actions, including its investigation into the allegations, constituted a pattern of discrimination — was an attempt to “sidestep the statute of limitations.”
They also wrote that Stone did not substantiate and “cannot retroactively assert” her claims that Harvard created a hostile work environment, which she did not lodge in her original complaint.
Stone’s legal counsel Regina M. Federico wrote in a statement that “Stone is confident in her position, which is set forth in detail in her complaint and opposition brief.”
“Havard’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions against her speak for themselves,” she added.
Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson James M. Chisholm declined to comment, citing University policy not to comment on active litigation.
—Staff writer Elyse C. Goncalves can be reached at elyse.goncalves@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @e1ysegoncalves.
