Sides with Kiffin.
At least a mild victory for sanity
The case stems from Kiffin informing Rollins last February that he was being demoted to the scout team on the Rebels’ offensive line. Kiffin allegedly told Rollins he should have transferred when he had the chance. As Rollins tells it, he informed Kiffin he needed to take a mental break from playing football. The team’s sports psychologist agreed, and Rollins then had counseling sessions. When Rollins met with Kiffin a month later, he says Kiffin ridiculed him for being incommunicado, made light of mental health and kicked him off the team (but didn’t rescind Rollins’ scholarship).
Rollins would go on to receive health care services. He was in talks with school officials about the fall 2023 semester when he sued. Rollins’ complaint contains claims for racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, denial of equal protection, violations of the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In response, Ole Miss and Kiffin insisted Rollins “was not kicked off the team” but instead “remains on the team, with his football scholarship, to this day.” The defendants further assert Rollins, who is still shown on the Rebels’ roster, can return to play at any time once he obtains a release from his mental health provider. A release is not a unique requirement for Rollins, the school stresses, but instead applies to all athletes who go on leave.
Mills identified several legal problems with Rollins’ lawsuit.
As a public university, Ole Miss (and by extension its employee, Kiffin) are entitled to sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. States, including its public universities, are often partially or fully immune from lawsuits, meaning the court is deprived of jurisdiction to consider claims. Mills found no viable grounds for Mills to overcome immunity for purposes of his ADA claim. The judge noted Rollins “concedes” the “only thing” keeping him from returning is obtaining a medical release, which he apparently hasn’t obtained.
Mills also found Rollins’ equal protection argument without merit. He wrote Rollins argues “Kiffin treated him differently than white and female athletes,” including because Kiffin allegedly allowed white players “to take a break and come back to the team,” but failed to plead Kiffin had discriminatory intent—a required element.
Mills also seemed to doubt the underlying theory, noting that since Rollins “was able to return to the team at any time by submitting a medical release,” he faced the “same treatment” as the white players. The judge also rejected a comparison of Rollins to women athletes at Ole Miss since “Kiffin was not involved” in their sports.
At least a mild victory for sanity
The case stems from Kiffin informing Rollins last February that he was being demoted to the scout team on the Rebels’ offensive line. Kiffin allegedly told Rollins he should have transferred when he had the chance. As Rollins tells it, he informed Kiffin he needed to take a mental break from playing football. The team’s sports psychologist agreed, and Rollins then had counseling sessions. When Rollins met with Kiffin a month later, he says Kiffin ridiculed him for being incommunicado, made light of mental health and kicked him off the team (but didn’t rescind Rollins’ scholarship).
Rollins would go on to receive health care services. He was in talks with school officials about the fall 2023 semester when he sued. Rollins’ complaint contains claims for racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, denial of equal protection, violations of the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In response, Ole Miss and Kiffin insisted Rollins “was not kicked off the team” but instead “remains on the team, with his football scholarship, to this day.” The defendants further assert Rollins, who is still shown on the Rebels’ roster, can return to play at any time once he obtains a release from his mental health provider. A release is not a unique requirement for Rollins, the school stresses, but instead applies to all athletes who go on leave.
Mills identified several legal problems with Rollins’ lawsuit.
As a public university, Ole Miss (and by extension its employee, Kiffin) are entitled to sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. States, including its public universities, are often partially or fully immune from lawsuits, meaning the court is deprived of jurisdiction to consider claims. Mills found no viable grounds for Mills to overcome immunity for purposes of his ADA claim. The judge noted Rollins “concedes” the “only thing” keeping him from returning is obtaining a medical release, which he apparently hasn’t obtained.
Mills also found Rollins’ equal protection argument without merit. He wrote Rollins argues “Kiffin treated him differently than white and female athletes,” including because Kiffin allegedly allowed white players “to take a break and come back to the team,” but failed to plead Kiffin had discriminatory intent—a required element.
Mills also seemed to doubt the underlying theory, noting that since Rollins “was able to return to the team at any time by submitting a medical release,” he faced the “same treatment” as the white players. The judge also rejected a comparison of Rollins to women athletes at Ole Miss since “Kiffin was not involved” in their sports.
Kiffin Lawsuit Win Reflects a Fading College Sports Landscape
Judge dismisses player lawsuit against Ole Miss and Lane Kiffin over alleged poor treatment but a future case might have different trajectory.
www.sportico.com
Last edited:
