Nearly $2M Award Upheld for Former College Tennis Coach Who Sued Over Rumor of Improper Sexual Relationship with Player

Holzgrafe, a former Quincy University tennis coach, sued former Quincy tennis player Lozier, related to a rumor that Holzgrafe had “a sexual relationship with another tennis player he coached.” A jury awarded Holzgrafe “$2,000,000 in general damages, $40,000 in special damages, and $874,000 in punitive damages.” Friday’s decision by Judge Sue Myerscough in Holzgrafe v. Lozier largely upheld the verdict:

The Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party at this stage. The evidence at trial established Defendant was a student at Quincy University in 2017. Prior to being a student at the University, Defendant developed a relationship with the Plaintiff, who was a tennis coach, from their interactions at various tennis camps. Defendant decided to attend Quincy University and play for the Plaintiff who was the head coach of both the men’s and women’s teams in 2017.

By 2017, Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s relationship had soured. This friction was due in part to Defendant not playing in various tennis matches. In addition, Defendant believed Plaintiff was angry with him about the injury of his girlfriend, Abby Moore, who was also on the women’s tennis team. Ms. Moore broke her ankle while practicing on a basketball court with the Defendant.

In April 2017, various rumors were circulating about the tennis program and especially Plaintiff, who was the head coach. Defendant admittedly spoke to another tennis team member, Danyil Vayser, who Defendant testified told him a rumor about the Plaintiff and another tennis player, specifically that Plaintiff had had sex with a female tennis player (“Jane Doe”) while on spring break.

After this conversation, Defendant repeated this information to two people, his mother, Cindy Lozier, and his girlfriend, Abby Moore. Defendant testified that his mother told him to “keep his mouth shut” and that Abby said she wouldn’t tell anybody else. However, Cindy Lozier called the University and reported the rumor.

This was not the first time Mrs. Lozier had called Quincy University. Rather, she called on at least two occasions previously when there were issues with her son. One occasion involved Defendant having a problem with his roommate. Mrs. Lozier called again when she could not locate the Defendant, her son, for approximately 3 hours and had the director of safety and security locate him. The Director of Safety and Security, Sam Lathrop, did so and told Defendant to call his mother.

Abby Moore was the best friend of Jane Doe, the female tennis player at the center of this rumor. Although Abby told Defendant she would not say anything, Abby told Jane Doe that a rumor was circulated Jane Doe was sleeping with the tennis coach. This disclosure resulted in a confrontation during tennis practice where the rumor was made more public. Thereafter, a Title IX investigation was conducted and both Defendant and Plaintiff[] voluntarily departed the University.

The court concluded, among other things, that plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence of damages; that “the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and that the coach was a private figure. The court also had an interesting discussion of defendant’s liability for the further communication of the rumor by the people he told about it:

Defendant argues the Court should have excluded any testimony and damages related to republications by third parties. Specifically, Defendant argues that these republications did not stem from a first public disclosure and the republications by Abby Moore and Defendant’s mother were not reasonably foreseeable.

A speaker who makes a defamatory statement is liable for republications that are the “reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions.” Defendant argues the “confidential communications” with his mother and girlfriend where he told each that “Vayser told me that Coach and [Jane Doe] had sex over spring break” cannot meet the standard for foreseeability as these comments were supposed to remain private.

Defendant thought these conversations were private, but it is reasonably foreseeable each of the individuals he spoke to would tell another this specific information. Mr. Lozier’s girlfriend at the time these statements were made, Abby Moore, was the “best friend” of the female tennis player also at the center of this rumor. No matter what assurances or promises were made by Moore, it is reasonably foreseeable that a fellow student of the same age and experience as Ms. Moore, would tell her best friend a rumor being circulated about her best friend’s sex life. This is especially true when that rumor involves Ms. Moore’s best friend having sex with their tennis coach.

It was also reasonably foreseeable that Cindy Lozier, Defendant’s mother would contact the school about this rumor. Cindy Lozier had a history of complaining to Quincy University when her son brought issues to her attention that were non-scholastic in nature. Further, Mr. Lozier admitted that his mother previously ensured people were “investigated” if they had issues with her son and had previously spoken to other parents of other students about Mr. Holzgrafe, specifically. These facts support a finding that the re-publications of Mr. Lozier’s defamatory statements were reasonably foreseeable and a natural or probable consequence.

Defendant last argues because the defamatory statements were made in private conversations rather than in the public before a large group, that it was not reasonably foreseeable republication would occur…. Defendant did not shout this rumor outside, at the tennis courts, or at a large meeting at Quincy University. That fact, however, does not make republication by his mother to the University or by Ms. Moore to her best friend, any less foreseeable based on the above analysis….

The court concluded that the $2M in “general damages”—i.e., damages presumed as a likely consequence of the defamation, rather than “special damages” that are specifically proved—was excessive:

The evidence at trial proved Plaintiff was no longer able to coach student athletes at the collegiate or club level, lost his part time job, was humiliated in the public’s eyes, and was accused of cheating on his wife with a student he coached. Although this evidence shows that Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s tortious behavior, the damages amount falls outside of reasonable compensation.

Plaintiff, while suffering emotional damages, and that to his reputation, suffered no physical damages or severe economic damages as the result of Defendant’s behavior. Plaintiff did lose a part-time job, but was still employed by his family’s construction company, and able to support his family’s needs. The jury clearly took into consideration the mental suffering, personal humiliation, and standing in the community. However, the amount awarded is excessive given the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

The compensatory damages award does shock the judicial conscience in terms of the sheer amount given the mostly emotional damages evidence. A $2 million award where there was no physical injury is indeed excessive, and the Court will decrease the compensatory damages award by 50%, to $1 million.

But the court didn’t reduce the punitive damages award; here’s a short excerpt of that long discussion:

The evidence at trial showed that Plaintiff did not suffer any physical injury. However, Plaintiff’s mental health was indeed affected by the rumor he slept with a tennis player he coached while married. Plaintiff became withdrawn, depressed, and testified his life was destroyed. What had always been a constant in his life, tennis and coaching, were no longer options based on the spreading of this rumor. This rumor was the basis for a University investigation after Defendant’s mother informed Plaintiff’s employer, which further spread this information to the public culminating in articles written about this matter and the subsequent litigation.

During trial, no evidence was presented of any indifference to Plaintiff’s personal safety or that Plaintiff was indeed more financially vulnerable than any individual who lost his job. As this Court has discussed earlier, Defendant had conversations with both his girlfriend and his mother, told them each this rumor, which was then repeated to others. Although the two conversations Defendant admits having are seemingly isolated incidents, his girlfriend’s best friend was the tennis player Plaintiff was allegedly having an affair with. Almost immediately after Defendant’s disclosure, this rumor was circulated through the tennis team and was discussed with the Plaintiff at a tennis practice. The repetition of information of this nature involving an athletic team was almost inevitable and cannot be described as isolated.

Lastly, the parties disagree whether Defendant’s actions were malicious in nature or evocative of ill will. A review of the evidence, including testimony by the parties and other members of the tennis team, show clear friction between the parties, as well as Defendant’s parents. Defendant testified that he did not spread any rumor purposely and was just repeating what was told to him. However, Defendant’s mere repetition argument was disputed by Danyil Vayser in part. This Court is unpersuaded by this argument and finds that Defendant’s actions were indeed reprehensible in light of the specific factors in this matter and did indeed cause significant harm to Plaintiff’s mental health and reputation and this award does not violate substantive due process principles.

The post Nearly $2M Award Upheld for Former College Tennis Coach Who Sued Over Rumor of Improper Sexual Relationship with Player appeared first on Reason.com.