“The defendant called her the ‘F-word’”

In Winfree v. Warren County School Dist.ruled last month by Judge Travis McDonough (ED Tenn.), the plaintiff was a high school basketball player who had been “offered a full scholarship to play basketball at Trevecca Nazarene University”:

On November 15, 2023, Defendant Mendy Stotts, the women's basketball coach, took Plaintiff out of practice to speak with her in the hallway. Stotts “screams[ed]” to the plaintiff, “she was tired of [Plaintiff’s] disrespect towards her” and accused the plaintiff of calling her the “F-word” during training. Stotts told the plaintiff that “[Stotts] didn’t want her on the basketball team anymore.” That same evening, the plaintiff sent an email to Phillip King, one of the school’s athletic directors, asking for a meeting.

The next day, November 16, 2023, the plaintiff and her mother met with King and Assistant Principal Anna Geesling to discuss the incident. The plaintiff's mother stated that she had never heard of any disciplinary action prior to the plaintiff's removal from the team. The next day, another meeting was held, this time with King, Principal Chris Hobbs, Stotts, the plaintiff, her parents, her grandparents, and a family friend.

At the meeting, Stotts said she had evidence that plaintiff said the “F-word,” while plaintiff stated there were witnesses who could testify that she did not say the “F-word.” Plaintiff was not allowed to present those witnesses. At the end of the meeting, Stotts dismissed plaintiff from the basketball team. Hobbs affirmed Stotts' decision. Two weeks after plaintiff was dismissed from the team, Trevecca Nazarene withdrew her scholarship offer. Plaintiff claims she also “expected” scholarship offers from Middle Tennessee State University and Tennessee Tech University, but those offers never came…

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated her due process rights by firing her from the team without a hearing and defamed her by falsely claiming she said “the F-word.” …

The plaintiff argues that students have a proprietary interest in playing on a school sports team “if they face suspension or expulsion from their respective team and such expulsion will result in the student-athlete losing one or more college or university athletic scholarships.”

[But] The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly ruled that “[a student] has neither a liberty nor a property interest in interscholastic athletics events, which are subject to due process protections.” … Furthermore, courts have held that the due process analysis is no different when a student has an athletic scholarship. Courts that have assumed that a scholarship could constitute a property interest have found that the mere offer of a scholarship is not enough.

{The Second Circuit recently recognized a student's proprietary interest in a one-year athletic scholarship that the student had already accepted. However, the court limited its holding to scholarships that were “for a fixed period of time and terminable only for cause,” on the grounds that a student “could reasonably expect[] to retain the benefits of the scholarship for this fixed period.” Here, the plaintiff had only “a [] scholarship Offer” from a school and “probably [] Scholarship offer[s]” from two more….}

Plaintiff points to a handful of nonbinding cases in which courts have found a proprietary interest in participation in school sports. This is hardly a large number of cases, and regardless, Plaintiff's argument runs afoul of binding precedent. While the Court recognizes the practical impact that a scholarship offer often has on a student's ability to pursue a higher education, it does not have the authority to ignore the weight of binding precedent….

Plaintiff also brings a defamation claim under state law, arguing that defendants defamed her by falsely claiming she said the “F-word.” {Plaintiff never actually explains what “the F-word” is or in what context it was allegedly used. Such details are important when they form the basis of a defamation claim. There are certainly contexts in which use of the “F-word” would be more offensive than in others.}

“[A] A federal court that has dismissed a plaintiff's federal law claims should ordinarily not address the plaintiff's federal law claims.” … The Court finds that the interests of procedural economy and the avoidance of unnecessary decisions on federal law issues militate in declining to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the remaining federal defamation claim …

Further examples where deletion led to confusion can be found in Randy Kennedy’s and my The new taboo: Quoting swear words in the classroom and beyond.