Sara Ramirez, a former girls’ basketball coach at Bishop Manogue Catholic High School in Reno, Nevada, sued the school and its president, Matthew Schambari, after her termination in March 2024.
Ramirez had been hired as a part-time coach in 2019. The School had received multiple parent complaints about Ramirez’s aggressive coaching style. When Ramirez learned she might be asked to resign, she requested a meeting with Schambari and the School’s Athletic Director, Frank Lazarek. Ramirez secretly recorded the meeting. The conversation largely centered on concerns about Ramirez’ coaching style but also included Schambari expressing concerns about outside perceptions regarding basketball players receiving scholarships and the need to be mindful about not supporting or creating a narrative that “brown kids” attend the School to win basketball games.
After this meeting, Ramirez was placed on probation and given a list of expectations, including cultivating positive relationships with student-athletes and their parents. The School continued to receive complaints about Ramriez, and shortly after leading the team to a state championship, Ramirez was fired.
After her termination, Ramirez spoke with the media, stating that School leadership warned her about perceptions that “brown kids” were receiving more playing time and that she was fired for not following those directions. She then filed suit asserting retaliation, discrimination, and related claims.
In response, Bishop Manogue and Schambari filed a defamation counterclaim based on Ramirez’s statements to the press. They alleged that Ramirez falsely suggested that School leadership had issued racially discriminatory directives and that her termination was based on her refusal to comply with those directives. Ramirez moved to dismiss the counterclaim and filed a special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides immunity for good-faith communications made in connection with issues of public interest and allows early dismissal of meritless defamation claims.
The trial court granted Ramirez’s anti-SLAPP motion. Applying Nevada’s two-step burden-shifting framework, the Court first determined that Ramirez’s statements were protected activity because they addressed issues of public interest. Specifically, they addressed allegations of discrimination and athletics at a prominent private high school, and they were made in public forums through media interviews. The Court also found that Ramirez’s statements were made in good faith. It concluded that the “gist” of her statements was supported by the transcript of the meeting in which Schambari referenced concerns about perceptions regarding playing “brown kids,” as well as by undisputed evidence that administrators monitored Ramirez’s coaching and ultimately terminated her after she did not change her approach.
The burden then shifted to the School to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of its defamation claim. The Court found the School failed to make this showing. It explained that the School did not dispute that the statements referenced by Ramirez were actually made, but instead argued that Ramirez misinterpreted their meaning. The Court held that a difference in interpretation does not establish falsity where the underlying statements were accurately reported. The Court further determined that Bishop Manogue and Schambari were likely limited-purpose public figures given the prominence of the School and its athletics program, meaning they would need to meet a higher standard and show actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard), which the evidence did not support.
Because the School could not establish falsity or malice, the Court granted Ramirez’s anti-SLAPP motion, dismissed the defamation counterclaim with prejudice, and denied the School’s request for leave to amend, finding amendment would be futile. The Court also ruled that Ramirez may seek attorney’s fees and costs under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute.
Ramirez v. Bishop Manogue Catholic High School, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43067 (D. Nev. Mar. 2, 2026).
Note: This decision highlights the broad protections anti-SLAPP statutes can provide for employees who speak publicly about alleged discrimination or workplace concerns, particularly when those statements relate to matters of community interest such as athletics and student treatment. California’s anti-SLAPP law provides similar protections for speech on matters of public interest.