Board debates coach pay categories; tables change to committee amid Title IX and wage-and-hour concerns

Board members raised concerns about what one trustee called an inequity between faculty and classified pay rates for coaching stipends and discussed legal exposure under Title IX and federal wage-and-hour rules. The board did not adopt an immediate policy change and instead directed staff to study the issue in committee.

Several trustees described instances where two people doing similar coaching duties were paid at different stipend levels because one was classified and one was faculty. One board member moved to eliminate the classified designation and pay all coaches the same faculty rate, citing Title IX equity concerns. District counsel and staff warned that a blanket reclassification could create wage-and-hour liability for overtime unless the primary duties and hours of each position were carefully analyzed.

District legal staff and human-resources officials explained the distinction between instructional duties (which can be exempt) and managerial or noninstructional duties (which are more likely to be nonexempt). They said the Department of Labor guidance treats purely instructional coaching work as potentially exempt but emphasized many coaching roles include equipment management, scheduling and other tasks that would require overtime calculations for hourly employees.

Board members agreed the issue needs a thorough, sport-by-sport analysis. Staff offered to convene a committee, review job duties, draft clear job descriptions and examine options for retroactive adjustments if the board chooses. The board voted to table the motion and refer the matter to committee.

Ending: Staff and board members said the committee will return with recommended job descriptions and options for equitable pay treatment; any retroactive pay decisions would be considered after legal and financial analysis.