Kathleen Stone was a distinguished coach of Harvard’s Division 1 women’s ice hockey team, hired in 1994 and amassing over 500 victories and multiple titles during her tenure. In 2017, anticipating legal reforms, Stone and other female coaches began advocating for pay transparency and gender equity. In 2018, Harvard implemented a new compensation model for coaches, but Stone alleges that the model failed to achieve true pay equity. Despite her achievements, Stone remained underpaid compared to the men’s ice hockey coach, with a salary gap of $50,000 to $100,000 annually. A belated salary increase in 2022 did not eliminate the disparity.
In March 2022, during a locker room address, Stone used the phrase “too many chiefs and not enough Indians.” She immediately apologized to players and staff and self-reported the incident. Nonetheless, Harvard initiated a two-prong investigation: a human resources complaint by an assistant coach and a review of survey data reflecting player dissatisfaction. The investigation concluded that Stone had not created a toxic work environment and had not engaged in a pattern of unprofessional conduct.
Despite this finding, Harvard placed Stone on a performance improvement plan (PIP) to address concerns raised by the players and, later in 2022, Stone learned of a forthcoming negative article in the Boston Globe. Harvard’s administrators instructed her not to engage with the press and assured her that the University supported her. After the article’s publication, which portrayed her as an angry and abusive coach, Stone offered to respond but was again dissuaded. The Athletic Director allegedly admitted to Stone that if she were a man, she would not have been treated the same way.
Subsequently, Harvard launched another investigation into Stone, focusing on allegations of hazing and bullying within the team. Stone contended she was unaware of such behavior and responded appropriately when informed. She alleged that Harvard shielded male coaches from similar scrutiny and tolerated similar conduct by them. In May 2023, facing the choice to retire or be terminated, Stone retired effective June 30, 2023. Harvard later announced that its investigation found no culture of hazing on the women’s hockey team. Stone claims that Harvard’s actions have devastated her coaching career.
Stone filed suit, bringing claims for sex/gender discrimination under Title VII and Massachusetts law, violations of the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA), and retaliation under both federal and state law.
Harvard moved to dismiss. Harvard argued that many of Stone’s claims were time-barred because they arose from events outside the applicable statutes of limitations. Harvard also contended that Stone failed to state a plausible claim for gender discrimination or retaliation and that no causal link existed between any protected activity and adverse actions.
Statute of Limitations
The Court rejected Harvard’s arguments that Stone’s Title VII, EPA, and Massachusetts law claims were mostly time-barred. It applied the continuing violation doctrine, noting that Stone alleged an ongoing pattern of discriminatory pay and treatment that extended into the limitations period. Under the federal Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, each paycheck reflecting unequal pay created a new cause of action. Thus, Stone’s EPA and Title VII claims regarding pay disparities and discrimination were not barred. However, the Court agreed that Stone’s MEPA claims were untimely for conduct predating July 2021.
Equal Pay Act Claims
The Court also found that Stone plausibly alleged a willful violation of the EPA, which would extend the limitations period to three years. Stone’s allegations that Harvard admitted it would not reach pay equity and took no further steps to correct disparities supported an inference of willfulness sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Sex/Gender Discrimination
Next, the Court found that Stone plausibly alleged gender discrimination by asserting that Harvard treated her less favorably than male coaches accused of similar misconduct, tolerated “hard coaching” styles by men but penalized her for comparable behavior, and ultimately forced her into retirement while publicly distancing itself from her. The Court found these allegations sufficient to state a claim.
Retaliation
The court held that Stone plausibly alleged retaliation. She engaged in protected activity by advocating for equal pay and complaining about gender-based disparities. Stone’s January 2023 statement to Harvard administrators that she believed she was treated differently because of her gender, combined with Harvard’s subsequent actions leading to her forced retirement, supported a plausible inference of retaliation.
Harvard’s motion to dismiss was granted only as to Stone’s MEPA claims arising before July 2021. All other claims—including her Title VII, EPA, Massachusetts discrimination and retaliation claims—survived and will proceed to the next stage of litigation.
Stone v. President
Note: The case underscores that even long-serving employees with internal complaints and public scrutiny may have viable legal claims when adverse actions follow advocacy for pay equity or highlight gender-based disparities in discipline.