​In February, six former University of Pittsburgh women’s basketball players filed civil lawsuits against Pitt and former head coach Tory Verdi, accusing the school of Title IX violations and alleging that Verdi subjected the players to emotional, psychological, and physical abuse while fostering a hostile, discriminatory, and retaliatory environment. Now, Pitt and Verdi have moved to dismiss the lawsuits. Attorneys for Pitt and Verdi submitted motions on June 30 in the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania asking that each of the six lawsuits be tossed out.
In the supporting briefs—copies of which USA TODAY Sports obtained—the Pitt attorneys Jeremy D. Engle and Matthew B. Simon, along with Verdi’s counsel Matthew D. Racunas, contend that the complaints lack the substance required to sustain their claims. “As the United States Supreme Court has observed, a federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination is not a ‘general civility code,’” the briefs state. “The Complaint alleges a smattering of isolated statements by Coach Verdi. Most of these statements have nothing to do with sex at all… Many are nothing more than coaching critiques directly related to an athlete’s fitness to compete in Division I sports.” The lawyers further note that the allegations amount to accusations that Verdi was a difficult coach who used crude language in his critiques—conduct that Title IX does not regulate. In essence, the six briefs—each about 20 pages long—argue that the players who sued Pitt and Verdi do not present viable claims that will endure in court.
The complaints, filed on February 6, came from Favor Ayodele, Raeven Boswell, Makayla Elmore, Brooklynn Miles, Isabella Perkins, and Jasmine Timmerson, all represented by the same attorney, Keenan Holmes. The suits also contend that Pitt knew about the players’ concerns regarding Verdi but took no action. Verdi was dismissed less than a month later by Pitt after the conclusion of his third season as the Panthers’ head women’s basketball coach. Pitt’s men’s basketball program and the broader athletics department have faced scrutiny in the wake of having gone 1-17 in ACC play this past season, the program’s worst conference record since joining the ACC in 2013. Following a roughly three-week search, Pitt announced the hiring of Robin Harmony—a former College of Charleston coach—to replace Verdi.
One of the central incidents cited in the lawsuits allegedly occurred after a 2023-24 season practice when Verdi purportedly told the team, “Every night I lay in bed I want to kill myself because of you.” The plaintiffs claim this statement created fear, emotional distress, and confusion among the players. Pitt’s and Verdi’s attorneys contest the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, arguing the plaintiffs did not show that Verdi’s conduct was extreme and outrageous or that it caused severe emotional distress.
In their motions to dismiss, Pitt’s and Verdi’s counsel emphasize that the plaintiffs must show more than harsh coaching or crude remarks to establish actionable emotional distress under the law. They argue that ordinary coaching criticism and discipline, even if delivered in a harsh or upsetting manner, does not meet the threshold required to support a claim under Title IX or other applicable statutes. The motions also challenge the breadth and factual sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, contending that the complaints fail to demonstrate the necessary elements of a sex-discrimination claim that would survive legal scrutiny in federal court.
As this legal dispute proceeds, Pitt and Verdi maintain that the lawsuits should be dismissed for lack of viable legal grounds. The plaintiffs, for their part, will likely continue to pursue their claims through the judicial process, asserting that Pitt’s leadership and Verdi’s conduct created a discriminatory and retaliatory environment that harmed their athletic experiences and well-being. The outcome of the motions to dismiss will hinge on whether the court finds the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to meet the standards for Title IX violations and related claims or whether the cases should be narrowed or dismissed outright based on the arguments that the conduct described does not meet the legal thresholds required for relief.