EXCLUSIVE: A U.S. Department of Education (ED) investigation found that San Jose State University (SJSU) allegedly made the decision to not suspend or relieve its head volleyball coach during the team’s 2024 transgender scandal, despite Title IX-related complaints against the coach.
ED’s findings, which were provided by SJSU to Fox News Digital in response to a public records request, suggest the school allegedly considered potential media attention that would arise from taking any action against the coach, and the affect it would have on the team.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
The findings do not mention the coach by name, but Fox News Digital reasonably believes the figure titled “Coach 2” in the findings to be current SJSU volleyball head coach Todd Kress.
“Additional notes indicate the decision to not suspend Coach 2 also included the improper consideration: ‘If we relieve him . . . [we could also spark more media attention. . . .’ University records indicate University officials, including the President of the University, agreed to not suspend Coach 2 because they felt his suspension would unduly disrupt the team,” the findings state.
ED’s investigation determined SJSU allegedly gave Kress preferential treatment over a female assistant coach, titled Coach 2, whom Fox News Digital reasonably believes to be former SJSU assistant volleyball coach Melissa Batie-Smoose, who is currently waging a wrongful-termination lawsuit against the school.
Batie-Smoose addressed the findings and the allegations that SJSU avoided penalizing Kress to dodge attention in an interview with Fox News Digital.
“All along, they were looking to protect the male player, and anything that would not draw attention, that was all their decision-making in the process,” Batie-Smoose said.
“‘So we want the least amount of attention on this, we want it to go away, and the more we pay light to that, we could have attention on it that we do not want,'” she added about the university’s alleged thought process at the time.
Batie-Smoose was suspended during the 2024 season, then her contract was not renewed the following winter. Per the findings and Batie-Smoose’s own attorney, the reason for her suspension was said to be because she violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), for speaking about a trans athlete’s birth sex.
Batie-Smoose’s attorney, Vernadette Broyles of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, has vehemently denied that Batie-Smoose violated FERPA.
INSIDE THE FALLOUT OF THE SJSU VOLLEYBALL SCANDAL: ‘THIS IS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM’
The findings state that both coaches had Title IX complaints made against them in 2024, but only Batie-Smoose was penalized, and references an interview Kress did with ESPN, where he allegedly violated FERPA himself.
“Both Coach 2 and Coach 3 had complaints filed against them during the 2024 indoor volleyball season relating to allegations of Title IX violations and employee conduct violations. During the pendency of the employee conduct investigations, the University suspended Coach 3 (a woman) but chose to not suspend Coach 2 (a man), for similar alleged conduct at the beginning of both investigations,” the findings state.
“University records indicate the decision to suspend Coach 3 was primarily based on allegations that Coach 3 committed a ‘FERPA violation’ when she ‘openly went to the press and trashed a student.’ Similarly, the investigator’s notes specifically state Coach 2 ‘crossed the FERPA line in his interview with ESPN…’
“The evidence indicates that Coach 3, a woman, was immediately suspended in conjunction with allegations of a FERPA violation, whereas Coach 2, a man, was not suspended despite facing similar FERPA allegations. OCR has requested additional information regarding these matters from the University in order to make an informed determination, but, despite having ample opportunity to provide it, the University refused to provide all of the requested information.”
The findings also cite an alleged observation by SJSU’s Title IX coordinator that Kress was being “borderline ignored or not even acknowledged.” Fox News Digital reasonable believes Student 3 in the section to be former SJSU co-captain Brooke Slusser, who leads a lawsuit over her experience on the team with the male athlete.
“An email from the Title IX coordinator dated October 17, 2024, includes the observation that: ‘The team has rallied around [Student 3] and [Coach 3], [Coach 2] isn’t organically being communicated with, borderline ignored or not even acknowledged,'” the findings state.
Batie-Smoose said her release led the players to question their safety.
“By releasing me… they have no safety anymore, they have nobody looking out for their best interest,” she said.
Slusser has also previously told Fox News Digital that Batie-Smoose’s release caused feelings of fear among herself and other teammates.
San Jose State University and the California State University system (CSU) have filed a lawsuit against ED to challenge the findings.
When reached for comment, SJSU provided a link to a webpage containing the document for a court order. The order prevents any immediate funding cuts to SJSU or CSU, and sets up an expedited court process if the federal government decides to act.
It states that CSU and ED must file joint status reports every 60 days until the federal defendants decide whether to withhold, pause, terminate, freeze, block, or otherwise refuse funding to SJSU or CSU, or take related action.
If ED decides to withhold funds or take other action, the parties must submit a proposed expedited briefing and hearing schedule within two business days. The schedule is intended to allow CSU to file a motion and have briefing and a hearing completed within 45 days of the government’s decision.
Until that process occurs, ED’s findings will have no effect on SJSU or CSU’s eligibility for federal funds. The Department of Education may not withhold, suspend, or disrupt federal funds based on that letter, proposed agreement, related findings, or the facts under investigation until 30 days after the court hearing, assuming the briefing and hearing happen within 60 days of the government’s decision.
