Amy Smith Lawsuit: Clemson Firing, Gender Bias Claim, For-Cause Fight

Amy Smith, the fired first head coach of Clemson’s gymnastics program, has not filed a lawsuit against Clemson as of late 2025, but she and her attorney have publicly signaled they are considering one. A potential Amy Smith Clemson lawsuit would frame her April 2025 firing as gender discrimination and challenge the university’s for-cause process. No suit has been filed, no settlement has been reported, and Clemson maintains it terminated Smith for violating her contract.¹

Where the Potential Lawsuit Stands

Smith’s attorney, Tom Newkirk, told The State in October 2025 that he planned to formally request Clemson reinstate Smith as coach before moving to litigation. That reinstatement demand is the announced next step. Until it is made and rejected, there is no case on file, no docket number, and no court schedule.¹

Smith herself has said publicly that she intends to use her platform to “speak out about female coaches in the same position,” and that the firing “destroyed my entire career.”¹

The Gender Discrimination Theory

Newkirk has previewed the core argument. He told reporters that “only a female coach would be accused of wrongdoing for doing her job” and that female coaches are “very often accused of abuse or being mean or a bully because she’s failing to meet the emotional needs of one athlete on one particular day.”¹

He also cited his own research, claiming Smith is “one of more than 300 coaches and counting who have been removed from college coaching simply because they are women or because they coach women.”¹

Newkirk has separately argued that Smith was denied adequate due process before being terminated for cause. That procedural challenge, alongside the discrimination theory, would likely form the spine of any complaint.¹

Smith’s Denials and Rebuttals

In an October 2025 interview with The State, Smith denied all allegations of abuse. “I have never engaged in abusive behavior,” she said, calling her coaching style “upbeat, positive and solution-oriented.” She argued that accountability was being mischaracterized: “When you’re put in a position where maybe you’re held accountable for the first time, it’s going to feel harsh, it’s going to feel hard, it might feel unfair.”²

Smith offered specific responses to several of the incidents cited in reporting by The State:

On the gymnast given an IV the morning of a meet, Smith said the issue was that the athletic trainer lacked authorization to perform the procedure, not that she pressured the athlete to compete.³
On the cortisone shot given to another gymnast late in the season, Smith said the injection was suggested by a parent, not by her, and was administered under proper medical supervision.³
On the reported confrontation with athletic trainer Nolan Hartzell, Smith attributed the friction to a “poorly formatted injury report” that caused miscommunication, and said Clemson administrators acknowledged as much.³
On favoritism, Smith pointed to what she called an internal contradiction: “Some athletes accused me of favoring younger gymnasts while others accused me of favoring older ones. Both can’t be true.”³

Why Clemson Fired Her for Cause

Clemson’s formal notice of separation cited three provisions from Smith’s 2022 employment contract:

A safe-treatment clause requiring the “safe and responsible treatment” of athletes, prohibiting physical or emotional abuse, and requiring compliance with the university’s medical clearance rules and deference to sports medicine staff.⁴
A personal-conduct clause prohibiting conduct that would bring “disgrace or embarrassment” to the university, “shock, insult or offend” the community, or manifest “contempt or disregard for diversity, public morals and decency.”⁴
A catch-all clause prohibiting acts that would bring “serious discredit” to the program or would be “likely to cause prospective student-athletes to elect not to attend” Clemson.⁴

Complaints reported by parents and athletes to The State and the Post and Courier included pressure on gymnasts to compete while injured or ill, heated clashes with athletic trainer Nolan Hartzell over injury status, a roster “completely divided” between older and younger gymnasts, and use of results from mandatory personality tests, originally framed as a communication tool, to manipulate athletes. One parent described “mental games” and said “nearly every member of the team was a victim in one way or another.”³⁵

Clemson has stated it has no records of formal Title IX complaints against the gymnastics program during Smith’s tenure.⁵

How the Investigation Unfolded

The review that led to Smith’s firing began with reports submitted through RealResponse, Clemson’s anonymous reporting platform for student-athletes. Beginning in late fall 2024, the system saw a spike in messages from gymnasts about the program’s culture. Women’s sports administrator Stephanie Ellison-Johnson described the response as a “deeper dive.”⁵

According to internal emails and records reported by the Post and Courier and Forbes, the review moved through several stages:

Late January 2025: a mid-year survey issued to all gymnasts.
January through March 2025: one-on-one meetings with 15 of the team’s 20 members.
February 17, 2025: a midyear review with Smith, Ellison-Johnson, and athletic director Graham Neff.
March 2025: meetings with parents.
April 6, 2025: administrators met with Smith to discuss team culture and roster management.
April 9, 2025: the athletics department engaged outside legal counsel.
April 11, 2025: Neff met directly with athletes.
April 18, 2025: Smith was fired.⁵⁶

That timeline, and whether it gave Smith a meaningful opportunity to respond before termination, is the ground on which Newkirk’s due-process argument would sit.

What “For Cause” Means for the Money

Because Clemson terminated Smith for cause, the university was not required to pay her a buyout. Her base salary for the 2024–25 period was $165,000.⁴

That distinction matters if litigation follows. If Smith were to sue and prevail on a wrongful-termination or discrimination theory, damages tied to the remainder of her contract, along with reputational and career-related claims, would be on the table. Reporting on prior allegations against Smith at UNC and Utah State, including gymnasts who publicly accused her of body-shaming, scholarship threats, and verbal abuse between 2017 and 2023, would also likely feature in any dispute over whether Clemson had cause.⁷

For now, the case exists only as a threat. Anyone tracking it should watch for a formal reinstatement demand from Newkirk to Clemson, and, if that fails, a complaint filed in state or federal court.

1
The State. Former Clemson Gymnastics Coach Amy Smith Considering Lawsuit
2
Athletic Business. Former Clemson Gymnastics Coach Mulls Lawsuit, Dispels Abuse Allegations
3
The State. Clemson Gymnastics Amy Smith Allegations From Parents and Athletes
4
The State. Clemson Records Show Amy Smith Contract Violations
5
Post and Courier. Clemson Gymnastics Amy Smith Fired
6
Forbes. Clemson Gymnastics Coach Dismissed for Cause Amid Allegations of Abusive Conduct
7
The State. Clemson Gymnastics Coach Amy Smith Prior Allegations at Utah State and UNC