PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A former Oregon State University rowing coach is suing the school and its athletic director, alleging he was unlawfully terminated amid harassment claims made against him within the team, according to court documents.

The lawsuit, which was first reported by The Oregonian, was filed October 20 in Benton County against OSU and OSU's athletic director Scott Barnes -- seeking $4.5 million for the alleged wrongful termination.

The suit was filed by Gabriel Winkler, who served as the head coach of the men's rowing team for 11 years until his termination on August 12. During that time, he claims he never received formal complaints, was not the subject of investigations and had not heard any concerns about the team's culture until the termination, court documents state.

According to court documents, OSU’s men’s rowing team is the only sanctioned sports team at the university that includes male, female and nonbinary students on the same roster.

The complaint claims that Winkler required his athletes to report any potential or perceived cases of harassment, bullying or discriminating conduct to another member of the coaching staff or OSU’s Equal Opportunity Access office.

The complaint then describes one incident on Jan. 14 at a rowing practice when two female athletes brought a complaint to Winkler.

“Two female athletes on the men’s rowing team reported to (Winkler) that a male athlete on the team was pressuring girls/and/or a non-binary athlete on the team into having sexual relations with him. Immediately thereafter, (Winkler) took a break from practice to call his supervisor, the Associate Athletic Director of OSU, to report what had been told to him. (Winkler) informed his supervisor that he would be contacting the EOA office to report what had been said," the complaint says.

According to court documents, the next morning, Winkler wrote a report with the EOA, describing what the female athletes reported to him. After the office confirmed they received the report, Winkler followed up with the office in an email, providing the names of the two athletes who made the report. Court documents claim Winkler was not contacted by the office or his supervisor about his report.

The suit claims later that “the two reporting athletes inquired with (Winkler) as to why they had not been contacted by EOA regarding their report. (Winkler) assured them he had submitted the information to EOA, and he encouraged the athletes to contact EOA directly. He also asked the athletes to let him know immediately if any further concerns arose that should also be reported to EOA."

Then, on Feb. 4, the office contacted Winkler, requesting a meeting with the coach and his staff to discuss “the men’s rowing team environment,” court documents claim.

During this time, Winkler and his assistant coaches were “working through a behavioral issue” with one of the teams’ coxswains, the lawsuit says, noting, between March 4 and March 11, one of the assistant coaches met with several of the athletes to listen to their complaints about their teammate.”

Later, on March 1, EOA held a meeting with Winkler and his two assistant coaches, which “consisted only of discussions about what a healthy team environment looks like with several examples being given by the coaching staff of evidence of the men’s rowing team’s healthy environment,” court documents claim. “During this meeting, Plaintiff and his assistant coaches also discussed the conflict being caused by the female coxswain and their efforts to address and resolve the issues. At no time during that meeting did EOA indicate a concern with the environment of the men’s rowing team or otherwise raise with Plaintiff concerns about the team culture.”

In late March, one of the female athletes who reported their male teammate in January, again asked Winkler for an update about their complaint, according to court documents. Winkler claims he reassured her that he made the report to EOA and suggested she make another report to the office to “get the investigation moving forward.”

Around late April to mid-May 2025, Winkler’s supervisor alerted him that EOA closed its investigation into the Jan. 15 report made by Plaintiff with no action being taken. Neither Plaintiff’s supervisor nor EOA gave Plaintiff guidance on how to deal with the situation. Defendants were simply allowing the reported male to remain on the team with the female athletes who reported his illegal activity and the non-binary victim of his conduct with no action taken," the suit claims.

The suit goes on to claim that Winkler did not believe that a healthy and supportive environment could be kept on his team for the female athletes if the accused male athlete stayed on the team with no repercussions for his conduct.

On June 4, Winkler claims he told OSU and the athletic director “he had taken the matter into his own hands, opposing the illegal practice of forcing the female and non-binary athletes to endure a sexually harassing and discriminatory environment caused by the male athlete by removing the male from the team.”

After detailing the complaint from the female athletes, Winkler's lawsuit points to the "demise" of the Pac-12 and the financial toll it took on the university after 10 schools left the conference in 2024. According to the lawsuit, this led OSU's men's rowing team -- a "non-revenue generating sport, -- to be permanently dropped by the university as a conference-sponsored sport. However, the suit says the women's rowing team remained a Pac-12 sponsored sport.

As a cost-cutting measure, OSU athletic director Scott Barnes planned to restructure the OSU rowing teams into one large group, male and female, that was consolidated under one coach, the lawsuit states.

“The women’s rowing team remained a Pac-12 sponsored sport. The women’s team head coach was not reporting and causing his athletes to report all perceived instances of harassment or discrimination to the EOA. He also had not opposed an illegal practice by removing a male athlete from the team when defendants refused to act on the complaints against him. For these reasons, Defendant Barnes decided to place the women’s rowing coach into the head coach position for the newly consolidated rowing group instead of (Winkler),” the suit claims.

In his lawsuit, Winkler argues that in order to remove him from his coaching position during the teams’ consolidation, OSU was required to pay his base salary for the remainder of his employment agreement.

However, Winkler’s suit claims, “Defendant Barnes did not want to incur the expense of paying Plaintiff his base salary for the remainder of his employment agreement. Doing so would nearly eliminate the savings sought to be realized by consolidating the OSU rowing teams under one coach.”

The lawsuit then alleges, “To avoid OSU’s payment obligation under the employment agreement, Defendant Barnes created a pretextual basis to terminate (Winkler’s) employment agreement ‘for cause.’ If plaintiff was terminated for cause, he was owed nothing under his employment agreement.”

The lawsuit then points to an alleged pivotal meeting in the case. On June 23, "under the guise" of Winkler's annual evaluation, Barnes and Winkler's supervisor met with Winkler and told him he was going to be terminated for cause.

“The cause identified by Defendant Barnes at the June 23, 2025, meeting was ‘too much noise around the men’s rowing program tied to the EOA complaints’ and a ‘bro-culture’ on the men’s rowing team that ‘created too many EOA complaints,’ court documents claim.

The lawsuit furthers that Winkler was never disciplined or investigated for the alleged negative culture on the team.

The complaint goes on to say that “(Winkler) asked Defendant Barnes to describe what he was referring to as creating a negative culture. Defendant Barnes could not give any examples of conduct constituting the alleged ‘cause’ for termination…(Winkler) was not given any directives or performance goals, he was not placed on a performance improvement plan, nor was any written documentation of this alleged concern made.”

“This was because the alleged performance issues Defendant Barnes raised were not real,” the complaint continues. “As (Winkler's) supervisor…explained to (Winkler's) coaching team, Defendant Barnes’ choice to terminate for cause was not about (Winkler's) performance. Rather, he confirmed, it was ‘all about money.’”

The complaint states that after nearly two weeks, OSU’s legal counsel reported that Barnes wanted to terminate Winkler for cause based on a “consistent, year after year, reported pattern of bullying and favoritism on [Plaintiff’s] team.”

“When confronted with the facts that (Winkler) had never been told of any such complaints and certainly no investigation into any such complaints had ever been conducted, OSU, through counsel, made up some different purported bases for the disciplinary discharge, then claiming that (Winkler) was actually being terminated for a pattern of safety concerns, anger issues, and using physical exercise as punishment. OSU again stated that none of these (false) allegations would have to be made public if (Winkler) would agree to resign,” the lawsuit claims.

The complaint notes that Winkler conceded that Barnes could terminate the employment agreement for no cause so he could continue the team's consolidation plan but still needed to abide by the agreement by paying the remaining salary.

On July 25, OSU relayed a “new basis: for Winkler’s termination, saying the former coach and his staff created a “’bro-culture’ environment on the team."

After Winkler refused to resign, Barnes and OSU prepared a notice of termination letter for Winkler.

In a statement to KOIN 6 News, an attorney representing Winkler said, “Mr. Winkler would like the OSU community to know that he treasured his time with the OSU rowing athletes, alums, and parents and takes great pride in all they accomplished together over the past 17 years. He tried his very best to avoid litigation, but Mr. Barnes’ decision to falsely accuse him of misconduct in his role as head coach just to avoid honoring OSU’s payment obligation under his employment agreement was just wrong.”

In a statement shared with KOIN 6 News, OSU Spokesperson Rob Odom stated, "Oregon State University is aware of the lawsuit initiated by the former men’s head rowing coach. While the university will not comment further on this pending litigation, OSU rigorously adheres to all federal and state laws while valuing and respecting all employees."