By William H. Baaki, of Goldberg Segalla
James “Jak” Knelman played hockey for Middlebury College until he was kicked off the team by head coach Bill Beaney for leaving a team banquet early. Whether the coach’s decision was right or wrong, the player has no right to sue the coach and college, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a decision issued on June 23 (Knelman v. Middlebury College, 13-2614-cv, 2014 US App LEXIS 11721 [2d Cir. June 23, 2014]).
Knelman joined the Middlebury team in 2009 after playing junior hockey in the United States Hockey League. Over the course of his first season, a disagreement apparently developed between Knelman and coach Beaney regarding Knelman’s desire to play forward and the coach’s decision to play him on defense (referred to as “back” by the lower court). Nevertheless, Beaney testified that Knelman was a “hard-working player” and not a “discipline problem.”
On the night of January 15, 2011, the Middlebury team was required to attend an athletic department fundraising banquet honoring the 1960-1961 Middlebury men’s hockey team.
Knelman, however, had planned to have dinner with his parents that night. One week prior to the banquet, he told Beaney about his plans and inquired how long the banquet would last. Knelman attended the banquet but left approximately one half-hour before the banquet concluded without seeking or obtaining permission to leave early from the coach or the team captains. He was subsequently suspended from the team for the remainder of the season.
Knelman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, arguing that the Middlebury College student handbook and the NCAA manual provided certain due process protections and that suspension from the team constituted a breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted summary judgment to the college and coach, dismissing the player’s claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
The Second Circuit applied Vermont law for the proposition that the relationship between a student and a college is contractual and that the terms of the contract are contained in the brochures, course-offering bulletins, and other official statements, policies, and publications of the institution. The court, however, rejected the player’s argument that the due process protections in the “Judicial Board Procedures” section of the college’s student handbook applied to sanctions imposed by a coach on an athlete.
The court explained that the student handbook specified certain sanctions for non-academic conduct infractions and disciplinary offenses, academic dishonesty, and plagiarism, “but it does not include athletic penalties, such as benching an athlete for a certain number of games, suspension from a team, or any other reprimand a coach might mete out.” In addition, because the student handbook did not incorporate by specific reference the NCAA manual, the court held that provisions of the NCAA manual were not part of the plaintiff’s contract with the college.
In reaching its decision, the court opined that:
“[w]hile [c]oach Beaney’s decision to bar Knelman from the team for the remainder of the season was arguably harsh, there was no breach of contract.” In affirming the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court explained that “[w]hile schools, colleges, and educators assume the responsibility of educating their students, the law does not recognize the existence of a special duty for purposes of a fiduciary duty claim.”
To the ancient legal maxim, “the law does not concern itself with trifles,” we may now add “the law does not concern itself with second-guessing discretionary coaching decisions.”
