SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY

University Personnel, Office for Equal Opportunity (OEO) & Employee Relations
Conduct Final Report
May 24, 2018

Complainant: Current and Former Gymnasts

Respondent: Wayne Wright, Head Gymnastic Coach
Investigators: Mike Waller, Senior Associate Athletic Director
Julie C. Paisant, Senior Director, Equal Opportunity & Employee Relations
Author: Julie C. Paisant, Senior Director, Equal Opportunity & Employee Relations

On January 30, 2018, Michael Waller, Senior Associate Athletic Director (“Waller”), was made aware of
various concerns regarding the treatment by Wayne Wright, Head Gymnastic Coach (“Wright” or
“Respondent”) of the current student-athletes on the San Jose Staté University (SJSU) Gymnastics Team.
These concerns were communicated to SJSU’s Title IX Office which determined that the claims were
outside the purview of CSU’s Executive Order 1097. The information received related to alleged conduct
that, if true, would constitute inappropriate behavior that violates SJSU expectations of appropriate and
professional conduct by coaches as stated in the terms of Wright’s appointment letter. An investigation
was conducted to determine if the Respondent engaged in behaviors that violated those standards.
Witnesses and Respondent received admonishments regarding the University’s policy against retaliation.

Julie Paisant, Senior Director, Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations (“Paisant”), conducted the
investigation in conjunction with Waller. The investigation included interviewing current student-athletes,
previous student-athletes, staff associated with the gymnastics team and Coach Wright. Several witnesses
provided written narratives regarding their experience on the team. Additionally, the investigator
reviewed Wright’s management personnel plan (MPP) appointment letter (i.e., employment contract).
This report relates solely to non-Executive Order 1097 allegations and information due to the allegations
not under the purview of Executive Order 1097. The non-Executive Order allegations are as follows:

● Verbal abuse including inappropriate name calling and comments

● Body shaming comments
● Manipulation and divisive behaviors towards individuals and team
● Threats to remove scholarships
● Preventing student-athletes from seeking treatment by trainer and/or not following
physician/trainer treatment plan
● Interference with Student-Athletes’ academic obligations/progress

The interviews are summarized below. Witnesses are anonymous for the purposes of this report due to
expressed concerns of retaliation.
EVIDENTIARY STANDARD

The determination in this case was made based upon a “preponderance of evidence.” This standard
considers whether it is more likely than not that an allegation is true.

INTERVIEWS

Current Gymnast

Gymnast #1
Gymnast #2
Gymnast #3

Gymnast #4
Gymnast #5
Gymnast #6
Gymnast #7
Gymnast #8

Gymnast #9
Gymnast #10
Gymnast #11
Gymnast #12

Former Gymnast​ ​Interviews

Former Gymnast contacted the Athletics Department and/or the President’s Office directly to
discuss their experiences during their participation on the gymnastics team with Wright as the
coach. Additionally, after the interview with Wright, he provided names of former gymnasts he
requested the investigator contact for interviews.

Former Gymnast #1
Former Gymnast #2
Former Gymnast #3

Former Gymnast #4
Former Gymnast #5
Former Gymnast #6
Former Gymnast #7

Former Gymnast #8
Former Gymnast #9

Former Gymnast #10

Former Gymnast #11
Former Gymnast #12
Former Gymnast #13
STAFF INTERVIEWS

Staff members who had direct knowledge of the allegations or Wright’s coaching were
interviewed. The names were not disclosed due to the fear of retaliation. During the interview
with Wright, he requested that the investigator speak to his staff to confirm that the allegations
presented were untrue and that his denial of the accusations were accurate.

Staff #1
Staff #2

Staff #3
Staff #4
Wayne Wright
EXPECTATIONS IN MPP APPOINTMENT LETTER

Wright’s appointment letter dated October 13, 2017 (i.e., contract) frames the expectations
regarding his conduct and behavior toward his student-athletes and staff. It states: “Employee is
responsible for complying with the following:”

***
“3) Maintain reasonable discipline and be fair, empathetic and develop a positive relationship
with the student-athletes, while motivating them to excellence in all aspects of life, including
athletic and non-athletic endeavors.”
***
“7) Work within the confines of all rules, regulations, guidelines, policies and procedures of the
athletics department and to ensure that those staff members within his/her charge does so as
well.”
***
“9) Maintain a professional, collegial, mature and rational demeanor and attitude at all times.”

FINDINGS

The following findings are made based on the interviews conducted:

Over thirty (30) witnesses were interviewed for the investigation. A majority of the witness
interviewed recollected incidents of Wright’s anger, name calling and yelling based on personal
experience. The witnesses, inclusive of current and former athletes as well as staff members,
indicated Wright would yell at the student athletes, call them names including but not limited to
“babies,” “dumb,” “stupid,” “trash,” “special, (as in someone who has a mental health
condition),”and “entitled,” Many of the same athletes also expressed their desires to leave the
team. Some of the witnesses indicated they had “tough skin” but did confirm the behavior had
occurred on more than one occasion. Although some of the athletes were unaffected by the
behavior, they recognized the alleged behavior (as indicated above) as inappropriate. Wright
requested his staff be interviewed in order for them to corroborate his appropriate behavior.
Several of the staff witnesses supported the current and former gymnasts’ account of his
negative behavior. In all, the witness statements confirm a coaching style of verbal abuse and
intimidation.

While there may, at times, be a perceived fine line between “tough” coaching and abuse, several
corroborated allegations raise particular concerns. First, many witnesses described Wright’s
disregard for reported injuries and illness of student-athletes. Specifically, Witness ​#1 through
11 excluding Witness #6 ​all reported that Wright either disregarded reports of injuries or illness
or pushed the athletes harder, insisting that they push through their complaints. It is admitted by
Wright that the students were required to come to him before seeing a trainer. Many interviewed
were too scared of his reaction to reports of pain or injuries. Henceforth the assistant coaches
were the only “buffer” for students to report injuries or illness. Also, many witnesses reported
Wright’s disregard or even hostility toward students’ academic progress and obligations.
Several witnesses corroborated his requirements that they put gymnastics above class obligations
and pushed students to change majors to fit within their gymnastics schedule. Students reported
being afraid to tell him of academic obligations due to his reaction. Finally, Wright used the
terms “slut” or “whore” toward his student-athletes and utilized body-shaming as a method of
applying control over the team members.

The number of corroborated accounts of Wright’s behavior is unsettling and disturbing. As

indicated in Wright’s appointment letter, there is an expectation that he:

“3) Maintain reasonable discipline and be fair, empathetic and develop a positive
relationship with the student-athletes, while motivating them to excellence in all aspects
of life, including athletic and non-athletic endeavors.”
***
“7) Work within the confines of all rules, regulations, guidelines, policies and
procedures of the athletics department and to ensure that those staff members within
his/her charge does so as well.”
***
“9) Maintain a professional, collegial, mature and rational demeanor and attitude at all
times.”

Several student athletes have indicated a level of fear (of Wright’s reactions) when they sustain
injuries during practice or become ill as Wright would get upset. For example, one athlete woke
up with a 103 degree fever and Wright still required the student to practice. Additionally,
another student athlete developed strep throat but was still required to be present at the meet.
Finally, a student athlete whose mother was afraid to share this information
with Wright as he would get upset. The reluctance expressed by the student athletes indicates
that an unmotivating and fear-driven relationship with Wright. As indicated previously, several
athletes have expressed a desire to leave the team rather than to endure such treatment by
Wright.
In addition, the verbal abuse by Wright had a visible effect on current and former student
athletes. Wright’s words did not foster a professional, collegial or mature learning environment
for the athletes; instead, it elicited fear, emotional breakdowns and at times, turned one player
against another (since Wright would ask gymnast to “call one another out.”). Given that Wright
is regarded by his athletes to hold a position of power and authority, it is not unreasonable for
him to be held by the expectations, as outlined in his appointment letter. However, Wright has
done just the opposite, as demonstrated by witness testimonies. In fact, the negative impact
Wright has had on the gymnasts he has coached still brings out a considerable amount of
emotional response. Several stated they gave up their scholarship and academic opportunity
because of the treatment they received from Wright. Between the obvious favoritism of some
and dislike of other gymnasts, many felt the behavior was abusive. Instead of bringing the team
together as one, his behaviors were seen as divisive and designed to keep them from coming
forward with their complaints.

CONCLUSION

The investigator finds that the witnesses, with the exception of Wright, were truthful and had no
credibility issues. The interviews corroborated the allegations of inappropriate comments and
behaviors by Wright. When presented with the evidence and the corroboration, Wright denied
the claims with short responses and offered no plausible explanation to counter the witness’
recollections of the events. In fact, he stated his belief that it was collusion by the current
student-athletes and they want to “get him fired.” The former gymnasts who provided their
accounts of the negative experience with Wright participated on the team as far back as 2005.

The investigator questions Wright’s credibility and truthfulness regarding his actions and
recognizes he has a powerful motive to deny he engaged in the outlined behaviors and
comments. He stated the staff would corroborate his denials, but the opposite occurred. Three of
the four staff attested to the allegations of angry and manipulative behavior by Wright. Although
the report is voluminous, the areas of greatest concern are: Wright’s disregard for the health and
safety of his team; Wright’s disregard for the academic progress of his team; Wright’s use of
inappropriate terms to describe the female athletes; Wright’s dishonesty during the investigation;
the working conditions of the assistant coaches; and Wright’s creation of an environment of fear,
intimidation and lack of respect.

Attachments:

A. Article from The Spectrum

B. Section from SJSU 2015-2016 Team Handbook titled “What Makes Wayne Mad”
Attachment A
Attachment B