Eighteen former members of the University of California, Berkeley women’s swimming and diving team sued the University, alleging that longtime head coach Teri McKeever subjected athletes to years of verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse and that the University knew about her conduct but failed to protect them. The swimmers participated in the program at various times between 2000 and 2020. Their lawsuit asserted negligence, negligent supervision or retention, negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
According to the complaint, Coach McKeever’s program relied on coercion, public shaming, intimidation, isolation, and fear. The swimmers alleged that she had violent outbursts, publicly berated athletes, commented negatively on their weight, forced them to train through injuries, threatened scholarships, and subjected swimmers to unsafe training practices. Each season, McKeever allegedly targeted certain swimmers for degrading treatment, routinely yelling at and attacking them in front of the team.
The swimmers also described a significant power imbalance: McKeever controlled competition opportunities and scholarships, could affect athletes’ ability to transfer, and had substantial influence in elite swimming outside the University. The swimmers alleged that the environment resulted in significant physical and psychological harm and caused some athletes to quit the team or leave the University.
The complaint also alleged a lengthy history of notice to the University. According to the swimmers, University officials had received concerns regarding McKeever’s conduct as early as 1994, before any of the plaintiffs joined the team. Over the ensuing years, athletes and parents raised complaints with athletics administrators, and the University’s Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination interviewed former swimmers about McKeever in 2018 and 2020 after receiving allegations of misconduct by McKeever. An internal performance evaluation also reportedly documented McKeever making personalized attacks on swimmers, athletes’ fear of attending practice, and fear of retaliation. Yet, according to the complaint, University officials did not take meaningful corrective action, instead only discussing with McKeever the power dynamics and how her words and actions can have a profound impact.
At the same time, the University continued to publicly endorse McKeever. It created a scholarship bearing her name, inducted her into its Hall of Fame, and renewed her contract through 2024 while describing her as an “iconic coach.” The plaintiffs alleged that these actions together with the University’s responses to complaints reinforced their belief that McKeever’s behavior represented legitimate elite-level coaching rather than abuse.
That distinction became critical because many of the alleged events occurred well outside the applicable two-year statute of limitations. In May 2022, the Orange County Register published an investigative report describing allegations of widespread abuse by McKeever and the University’s alleged failure to respond to complaints dating back to at least 2014. The swimmers alleged that it was only after the article appeared that they understood that their individual experiences were part of a broader pattern and began to recognize the treatment they had experienced as potentially wrongful. After the article, the University commissioned an independent investigation, which ultimately concluded that McKeever had created a hostile environment for swimmers on the basis of race, national origin, and disability. The investigation determined that McKeever violated University policies against bullying and abusive conduct. The University terminated her employment in January 2023.
The trial court dismissed the former swimmers’ lawsuit as untimely, but the California Court of Appeal reversed. Under California’s discovery rule, a claim may not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the factual basis for the claim.
The Court concluded that the swimmers had sufficiently alleged that, despite knowing they were suffering under McKeever’s coaching, they did not know or have reason to suspect that the coaching itself was wrongful. The Court relied on allegations concerning the coach-athlete power dynamic, the athletes’ youth and lack of Division I experience, the normalization of harsh coaching practices, and the University’s own conduct. When athletes or parents complained, they were met with silence, reassurances about McKeever, or investigations that resulted in her remaining in place. Meanwhile, the University continued publicly celebrating and rewarding her. The Court of Appeal found that those circumstances could reasonably have reinforced the athletes’ perception that what they were experiencing was an accepted part of elite athletics.
The Court emphasized the unusual nature of the environment, describing it as a “closed environment” in which the boundary between challenging coaching and abuse had been obscured for these athletes. At the pleading stage, the Court was unwilling to conclude as a matter of law that the 2022 news report could not have provided the context that caused the swimmers to recognize the alleged wrongdoing for the first time. However, because their allegations raised at least a factual question regarding when they reasonably discovered their claims, dismissal based on the statute of limitations was improper. The Court reversed and sent the case back to the trial court.
Touhey v. Regents of the University of California (June 16, 2026) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2026 WL 1732324].
Note:
The decision is a reminder that the passage of time does not always eliminate potential liability. Although statutes of limitations provide important protection against stale claims, the discovery rule may delay accrual where a plaintiff plausibly alleges that the surrounding circumstances, including the school’s own conduct, prevented the plaintiff from reasonably recognizing that the conduct was wrongful.