Football Coach Wins $200,000 Defamation Claim Arising from Email

Takeaway: Employers must exercise caution when discussing or criticizing an employee’s performance with people outside of the workplace.

A former football coach and athletic director recovered a $200,000 verdict on a defamation claim against a school district because of an athletic trainer’s email questioning his record keeping.

The plaintiff became the head football coach and athletic director for Berkeley High School in 2011. For the 2015 season, he adopted a controversial “no punt” offensive scheme for the team. This strategy stirred intense debate among the team’s followers and was covered in local and even national sports pages. The controversy deepened as the team suffered lopsided defeats.

In December 2015, the deputy superintendent of the Berkeley County School District sent the plaintiff a letter advising him that he was being relieved as coach and athletic director and reassigned to a position as a middle school guidance counselor because he failed to meet certain performance goals. The school district never revealed the reason for the plaintiff’s reassignment to the public. The plaintiff requested that the school district reconsider his reassignment.

On Jan. 7, 2016, a Berkeley High School athletic trainer sent an email to 45 people, including administrators, athletic department employees and volunteer coaches, questioning the integrity and completeness of the student athlete files the plaintiff had maintained. The email stated that there “could be” some documents “misplaced” and others that are “out of order” and raised concerns from a liability standpoint.

On Jan. 8, the school district superintendent sent the plaintiff a letter upholding his reassignment. Although the plaintiff completed the rest of the year at the middle school, he resigned at the end of the school year, noting in his resignation letter how the school district had humiliated him and destroyed his career by removing him from his coaching and athletic director positions without any public explanation. The plaintiff and his wife sold their home and moved out of state. He contended he could not find a suitable coaching job—or even a position as a volunteer coach—because of the school district’s actions.

The plaintiff later brought a lawsuit against the school district, alleging wrongful termination and defamation. His defamation claim was based on several things, including the athletic trainer’s email. The district court granted the school district’s motion for directed verdict on the plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim and his defamation claim, except the portion of the defamation claim related to the athletic trainer’s email. The trial court rejected the school district’s contention that the plaintiff was required to prove actual malice, ruling that the plaintiff was not a public figure.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $200,000 in actual damages. The school district appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed, holding that the plaintiff was a public official for the purposes of defamation law and that the school district was therefore entitled to immunity because the South Carolina Tort Claims Act immunizes the school district from losses caused by employee conduct amounting to actual malice. The plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court determined that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan decision, a public figure is required to have policymaking responsibilities. Additionally, an individual could qualify as a limited public figure if that person injects themselves into a public controversy. Generally speaking, neither standard is satisfied merely by being a sports figure or even a celebrity.

The court then considered the school district’s arguments that the email sent by the athletic trainer was not defamatory and that the plaintiff did not prove damages from the criticism of his record keeping. In considering these arguments, the court determined that it must apply a favorable standard to the plaintiff, who had obtained a jury verdict. Under this favorable standard, the plaintiff had enough evidence in support of his claim and his alleged damages to uphold the verdict. Two justices of the court, however, disagreed with the majority and would have ruled that the email was a mild critique of the plaintiff’s paperwork skills and thus not defamatory.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the jury verdict.

Cruce v. Berkeley County School District, S.C., No. 2021-001520 (Jan. 17, 2024).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.