A judge has ruled that a former Virginia Tech women’s soccer player can continue her lawsuit against her former coach, in which she claims she was forced off the team because she herself chose to refuse to kneel during the national anthem before games in solidarity with BLM and their social justice cause. This decision can be considered a victory for freedom of speech.
From 2018 to 2020, Hokies linebacker/defensive back Kiersten Hening filed a lawsuit against Charles “Chugger” Adair for violating her constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech in 2021. According to a report in the New York Post, federal judge Thomas Cullen agreed, declaring on December 2nd of that year that the trial can begin.
Joe Biden made me sick of him. He is the worst president in history! To show off to my leftist neighbors, I recently bought this fun Joe Biden t-shirt. It’s finally for sale! Get it right here. Henning went on to say in the complaint that while she “supports social justice and believes that black lives matter,” she “does not support the BLM organization,” noting its “tactics and the guiding principles of its mission statement, including paying the police.” “
Hening said Adair “verbally assaulted” her at halftime after she refused to kneel during the reading of a “statement of unity” during a game against UVA on Sept. 12, 2020, accusing her of “b—rubbing and moaning” and poking her finger. in her face.
You can get a newsletter that we never send because we always forget by filling out this form for free. According to the lawsuit, the coach continued to reprimand Hening until he benched her and eventually created conditions so intolerable that she was forced off the staff.
Hening, who had made significant contributions on the court the previous two seasons, claims Adair benched her for the next two games and significantly reduced her playing time as a result of her First Amendment-protected speech. As a result, Hening left the team after the third game of the season, according to Cullen’s recent ruling.
Despite the coach’s argument that the playing time of the two players who chose not to kneel remained intact, the motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied.
Cullen, the presiding judge, said that while Adair might be able to convince the jury that his coaching decision was solely due to Hening’s subpar performance during the UVA game, the court cannot reach a definitive conclusion when it considers the evidence in the light most favorable to Hening. that conclusion arising from the law. Cullen emphasized that the matters at the heart of the case are of vital importance.
“While the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit may not have addressed the novel factual circumstances presented here—i.e., a college coach allegedly retaliated against a female player for allegedly refusing to kneel with her coaches and teammates in support of perceived unity and social justice—the underlying constitutional principle is clearly established and essential to a free society, and especially to an institution of higher learning,”
Cullen wrote. In this case, was the player only on the bench for her performance? Or was it revenge for not kneeling with the squad as a whole? While this trial may take some time, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
The court is expected to delve into the question of whether Hening was benched solely for her performance, or whether it was actually a form of retaliation for her refusal to kneel with the rest of the team. While the proceedings may take some time, the outcome of this case will undoubtedly be very interesting and shed light on the intersection of free speech, personal beliefs, and athletic team dynamics.