Support For Shannon; Summary of the final part of the report – prospects for obtaining comparable employment as collegiate head coaches.


The following are excerpts, quotes and summaries from the ‘Expert Report’ created by Donna A. Lopiano PH.D, which has been created to independently look at all of the evidence provided in the case of:  Shannon Miller, Jen Banford and Annette Wiles v The board of Regents of The University of Minnesota

All of the content in our summaries have been pulled directly from the report and are in no way opinions, conclusions or comments of the FCN.  We have simply provided our audience with a concise and shorter version of the report written by Donna A. Lopiano PH.D in the hope of raising awareness of the case.

There are 8 questions in which Donna A. Lopiano PH.D has been asked to present her findings, and over the coming few days, we will be publishing each individually for you to read.  The full 124 page report which is a public document will be available on the FCN website for all to read further.

The FCN would like to offer its full support of Shannon Miller, Jennifer Banford and Annette Wiles.  Discrimination of any coach based on their gender, sexual orientation, race or any other factor is abhorrent and we stand by those that speak out against it.  We have decided to release content from this report with the aim of raising awareness of such discrimination and to inspire other coaches who may be going through similar incidents to speak the truth.




Given your experience as a director of women’s athletics at a major division I institution and expert in numerous cases similar to this lawsuit, what is your opinion regarding Miller, Banford and Wiles’ prospects for obtaining comparable employment as collegiate head coaches. 

To end the report, Donna A. Lopiano PH.D concludes with an evaluation on whether Shannon Miller, Jennifer Banford and Annette Wiles would be able to obtain future employment as collegiate head coaches due to their experience at UMD and their filing of the law suit.  She states:


“There are only 35 women’s ice hockey playing institutions in Division I, the top competitive division of the NCAA, who can afford a coach of the caliber of Shannon Miller. Head coach positions at these institutions are at the top of the salary and prestige scale in Miller’s chosen career field. It is my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the predominantly male athletic directors in this small group who know and regularly interact with each other would hire Coach Miller or any woman who has formerly sued her employer institution for discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. It is also highly unlikely that someone of Coach Miller’s stature would accept a Division II or III coaching position offering salaries at significantly lower levels. In my opinion, it is highly likely that the UMD position will be her last collegiate coaching job. “


“With regard to Banford and Wiles, while there are a far greater number of Division II softball and women’s basketball programs than Division I ice hockey programs, I believe it is also very unlikely that a higher level Division II program similar to UMD would hire any woman who has formerly sued her employer institution for discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. It is far more likely that Banford and Wiles will have to move to lower level Division II programs if they are able to stay at that level at all. “




For more information about the mention case, please visit the following links:

Shannon Miller Interview – April 2017

Shannon Miller Interview – September 2015

Why the Shannon Miller case is so important for all women in all sports.





Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here