Thursday, June 18, 2026
Page 1
Suit Over Bullying Revived Under Delayed Discovery Rule
Demurrer Should Not Have Been Sustained to Causes of Action Alleging Abusive Treatment By Swimming Coach Where Plaintiffs Say They Did Not Realize Wrongfulness of Her Conduct Until Alerted by Newspaper Article—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
TERI McKEEVER former swimming coach |
A lawsuit over the alleged harassment and intimidation of members of the women’s swimming and diving team at the University of California, Berkeley by the then-chief coach over the period from 2000-2020 is not time-barred despite a two-year statute of limitation on personal injury actions, Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has held, declaring applicable the delayed discovery rule.
“To successfully invoke the discovery rule, plaintiffs must plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery, and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence,” Justice Monique S. Langhorne Wilson wrote, declaring that the first amended complaint meets the test.
Although the 18 plaintiffs were aware of harmful conduct as it occurred, an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday says that accrual of their causes of action did not begin until May 2022. That’s when the Orange County Register published an article bearing the headline, “UC Berkeley Swimmers Allege Teri McKeever Bullied and Verbally Abused Them for Years.”
The newspaper reported on May 24 that McKeever “allegedly verbally and emotionally abused, swore at and threatened swimmers on an almost daily basis, pressured athletes to compete or train while injured or dealing with chronic illnesses or eating disorders.’’
Following an investigation, McKeever was fired on Jan. 31, 2023, after 29 years of coaching at the university. In 2012, she served in London as head coach for the U.S. Olympic women’s swimming team.
No Earlier Realization
Tuesday’s opinion reverses a judgment of dismissal that followed Alameda Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Riles’s sustaining of a demurrer brought by The Regents of the University of California, without leave to amend.
Langhorne Wilson said that in liberally construing the operative pleading—which says that until the Orange County Register article appeared, the plaintiffs did not appreciate that McKeever had engaged in wrongdoing—“plaintiffs’ claims are not necessarily time-barred.”
She wrote:
“The detailed pleadings describe a closed environment and conduct that, for these athletes, obscured the boundary where coaching became abuse. We are not prepared to say, as a matter of law at this stage, the article could not have triggered the context and shift in realization that plaintiffs claim.”
The jurist added that “[i]f they did not know or suspect there was any wrongdoing by McKeever, then they could not have known there was any wrongdoing” by the university.
Power of Coaches
Langhorne Wilson explained, without disclosing the source of her impressions:
“Coaches of elite college athletics maintain a power advantage over the athletes. The coach controls what type of financial scholarship the athlete receives, whether the athlete competes in events, and has an outsize role determining whether the athlete advances to the national team. Because of the power differential, athletes are at risk of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse by their coach.”
She continued:
“Abusive coaching includes belittling, humiliating, shouting, scapegoating, rejecting, isolating, and threatening. Athletes are trained to endure challenges and become comfortable in discomfort- and they are trained to not complain. Research demonstrates that the normalization of psychologically abusive coaching, along with inactive bystanders, prevents athletes from reporting the conduct. Within a team, conformity is valued and athletes resisting abusive conduct may be painted as dissenters and be ostracized.”
Langhorne Wilson added:
“This power dynamic makes it difficult for athletes to realize they are victims of abuse. When abusive coaches are backed by large institutions, the athlete cannot easily confront or sever ties with the institution and so they are forced to either ignore or accept abuse to preserve the relationship.”
She said the athletes “develop coping mechanisms,” including becoming “blind” to the abuse. The university’s acceptance of the conduct as normal, the justice observed, “confirms the athlete’s assumption that the behavior is acceptable.”
Concurring Opinion
In a concurring opinion, Acting Presiding Justice Kathleen Banke said that under case law, whether the delayed discovery rule applies should be determined as to each plaintiff as a factual issue, not resolvable as a matter of law. But she expressed reservations, saying:
“…I would be hard pressed to conclude plaintiffs here can avail themselves of the discovery rule. They were fully aware, at the time it occurred, of the coach’s allegedly harsh conduct. They were fully aware, at the time, that that conduct was hurtful to them, with consequential physical, emotional, and psychological ramifications. They were fully aware, at the time, that either they, themselves, left the athletic program and/or other teammates left the program to avoid being further subjected to any such conduct by the coach. And they were fully aware, at the time, that other university personnel were aware of the coach’s conduct but took no action against her.
The case is Touhey v. The Regents to the University of California, A171325.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company