A federal judge from the District of Delaware granted summary judgment to the University of Delaware (UD) in a case in which it was sued by a student athlete and her father, who claimed a former coach made certain promises about her athletic scholarship that the new coach subsequently disregarded.
The court found the claims were meritless because the scholarship at issue was guaranteed for only one year as evidenced by the contract between the plaintiffs and the university.
The plaintiffs in the case were Jennifer Eppley, the student athlete, and Daryl Eppley, her father. Ms. Eppley played on her high school’s field hockey team and was recruited by various universities to play field hockey during her final years of high school. Members of the UD field hockey coaching staff first reached out to Ms. Eppley in December of 2008. On June 8, 2009, Ms. Eppley and the previous coach had an email exchange in which the coach allegedly expressed a desire to have Ms. Eppley play on UD’s team.
Later that year, according to the plaintiffs, Ms. Eppley claimed that the coach offered her “a scholarship which she said would be 35 percent in Ms. Eppley’s first year, 75 percent in year two, and 75 percent or more in years three and four.”
Further, the plaintiffs claimed that the coach affirmed as much in an email.
On January 21, 2010, Ms. Eppley received an Athletic Grant-In-Aid document for the period beginning August 31, 2010 and ending May 28, 2011. On the same day, the Eppleys signed a National Letter of Intent (NLI).
During Ms. Eppley’s first semester, Coach Miller announced her retirement and left the UD field hockey program. Rolf van de Kerkhof (Coach Rolf) was hired as the new head field hockey coach. On March 21, 2011, Coach Rolf informed Ms. Eppley that based on her performance, her scholarship was going to be reduced to 20 percent during her second year on the team. Ms. Eppley filed an appeal and attended an administrative hearing in an attempt to have her scholarship amount increased. She contacted Coach Miller by email prior to her appeal hearing. Ms. Eppley explained Coach Rolf’s decision to cut her scholarship and suggested that Coach Miller could help her in the appeal process “by letting the committee know that my financial aid this year is to be 75 percent of a full scholarship.”
“Notably,” wrote the district judge, “Coach Miller informed Ms. Eppley that ‘an email from me stating that I would-have renewed your scholarship will not have any validity in your hearing.’”
In a written decision, the Hearing Board stated that it “finds that the reduction of Ms. Eppley’s grant-in-aid for the 2011-2012 academic year was justified and appropriate, and on that basis denies Ms. Eppley’s appeal.” Ms. Eppley left the team, and soon thereafter filed suit for a violation of Title IX, as well as negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement.
The court handily dispatched with the Title IX claim, which was premised “largely on the allegations that Ms. Eppley’s scholarship was reduced while some male students’ scholarships allegedly were not.” The court found “there is no evidence in the record beyond Ms. Eppley’s bare assertions and conclusory allegations to support their assertions of disproportional treatment.”
As for the negligent misrepresentation claim, the court noted that such a claim “requires (1) a pecuniary duty to provide accurate information, (2) the supplying of false information, (3) failure to exercise reasonable care in obtaining or communicating information; and (4) a pecuniary loss caused by justifiable reliance upon the false information. See Atwell v. RHIS Inc., 2006 Del. Super. LEXIS 375, 2006 WL 2686532 (Del. Super. Aug. 18, 2006).
“The Eppleys made no attempt to satisfy the elements of this claim. Instead, they rely entirely on allegations that Coach Miller promised Ms. Eppley a multi-year scholarship, that Ms. Eppley ignored other opportunities, and that Coach Miller made the promise to induce Ms. Eppley to attend the University of Delaware.
“At the time Coach Miller was recruiting Ms. Eppley, there was no fiduciary relationship between the Eppleys and Coach Miller. While she had obligations to abide by NCAA and University rules, neither established a duty to act as a fiduciary on behalf of Ms. Eppley or her parents. Without an underlying fiduciary relationship, the Eppleys cannot succeed.”
Furthermore, the Eppleys signing of the NLI “nullified any agreements, oral or otherwise. Thus, any other agreements which may have been made between Coach Miller and the Eppleys were null and void as of the signing of the NLI. The documents that the Eppleys signed directly contradict their reliance on Coach Miller’s alleged representations. In light of these documents any reliance on the promise was unreasonable.”
Turning to the claim for fraudulent inducement, the court pointed out that to prevail, the Eppleys must satisfy the elements of common law fraud. See Haase v. Grant, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 16, 2008 WL 372471 (Del. Ch. Feb. 7, 2008). “The elements include: (1) a false representation of material fact; (2) the defendant’s knowledge or belief that the representation was false, or was made with reckless indifference to the truth; (3) the defendant’s intent to induce the plaintiff to act or to refrain from acting; (4) the plaintiffs action or inaction taken in justifiable reliance upon the representation; and (5) damage to the plaintiff as a result of such reliance. DCV Holdings, Inc. v. ConAgra, Inc., 889 A.2d 954, 958 (Del. 2005). … No evidence was submitted to establish each of the elements of fraudulent inducement.”
Jennifer Eppley and Daryl Eppley v. The University of Delaware et al.; D. Del.; C.A. No. 13-cv-99 (GMS), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2893; 1/12/15
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Charles Snyderman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Charles Snyderman, P.A., Wilmington, DE. (for defendants) James Darlington Taylor, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Gerard M. Clodomir, Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE.
