The University of Pittsburgh uses the Dragonetti Act to Attempt a Reversal on Its Former Wrestling Coach

By Robert J. Romano, JD LLM, St. John’s University

Jason Peters, one-time coach for the University of Pittsburgh’s wrestling team, had his racial discrimination and breach of contract lawsuit against the University dismissed by a federal court in September 2020. Because the court rejected Coach Peters’ legal case, the University is now attempting a ‘reversal’ by suing its former employee to recover expended attorneys’ fees and other damages allegedly caused by the coach’s “frivolous” litigation.

By way of background, Jason Peters was hired by the University of Pittsburgh in 2013 as the school’s head wrestling coach. During a 2017 winter break wrestling tournament in Evanston, Illinois, while at the hotel after the event, a number of the team’s wrestlers were purported to be under the influence of alcohol and to have used the internet to secure the services of three alleged prostitutes. Two of the wrestlers, however, sustained a “gut wrench” when they allegedly had $100.00 stolen from them by their “invited guests.” Police were called to investigate the purported theft, wherein it was discovered that the Pittsburgh wrestlers solicited the services of the women through backpage.com, a now-defunct website, which federal authorities subsequently seized as part of a sex trafficking investigation.

On January 13, 2017, the University suspended both Coach Peters and the wrestlers involved while it investigated the matter. Six days later, on January 19, 2017, Pittsburgh by means of a “technical fall” terminated the employment agreement it had with Coach Peters. The University released a statement indicating that the termination was due to the incidents that occurred during the winter break tournament in Evanston and because Coach Peters failed to timely inform the athletic director of these occurrences as mandated per his employment contract.

As of result of his dismissal, Jason Peters attempted to “takedown” the University by filing a federal lawsuit claiming that the termination was without “just cause” and that he was “discharged and otherwise discriminated against [by the University] on the basis of his race.”[10] The federal judge, after “grappling” with a series of pre-trail motions, in September 2020, dismissed all of Coach Peters alleged claims.

Not willing to allow Coach Peters to “escape,” the University of Pittsburgh responded with its own attempt at a “takedown” by filing an action against Coach Peters. Per its lawsuit, the University claims that the former coach was negligent when he used the court system to file his “wrongful” and “frivolous” legal claims and in doing so, he violated the State of Pennsylvania’s Dragonetti Act.

The Dragonetti Act, the State of Pennsylvania’s codification of the common law tort of wrongful use of civil proceeding, was passed by the state legislature in 1980. The statute is designed to allow those initially named as defendants in a dismissed civil action, to then counter-sue those that frivolously or wrongfully filed the initial civil proceeding against them. In order for a party to prevail on a claim under the Dragonetti Act, the plaintiff must establish the following two statutory requirements:

1. The person who was responsible for the legal action acted in a grossly negligent way, pursuing the case without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than the stated basis of the lawsuit, and
2. The original claims are terminated, and the ruling was in favor of the person who was the original defendant.[11]

In other words, if a party is sued maliciously and without reasonable cause, such party can file a lawsuit under the Dragonetti Act as long as it prevailed in dismissing the original claim or claims. Note, however, the mere fact of successfully defending oneself does not automatically mean that the courts are going to find that the original plaintiff’s cause of action was wrongful or frivolous. As per the matter of Hart vs. O’Malley, the plaintiff has to prove that the actions of the original plaintiff were grossly negligent. “An action for wrongful use of civil proceedings pursuant to the Dragonetti Act does not require a prima facie showing of actual malice, but such action requires proof that the defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner.”[12]

In addition to the above, a Plaintiff (former Defendant) has the burden of proving to the court the following:

1. It was indeed the defendant (former plaintiff) that filed the initial civil proceedings.
2. That proceedings were terminated in the plaintiff’s (former defendant) favor.
3. The defendant (former plaintiff) did not have probable cause for the initial/underlying action.
4. The primary purpose for which the initial proceeding was brought was not that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim on which the proceedings were based.
5. The plaintiff has indeed suffered damages.[13]

To show it can meet its burden that Coach Peters’ actions were grossly negligent, the University claims that his racial discrimination and breach of contract lawsuit was actually an “illegal hold,” absent of any actual basis. Pittsburgh alleges in its complaint that “Peters knew there were no facts that would support a race discrimination claim. In fact, a year after Peters filed his race discrimination claim, he admitted under oath that he was still unaware of any evidence that the university discriminated against him based on his race.”[14]

In addition, the University intends to prove that it has suffered significant monetary damage by exhibiting how Peters, on multiple occasions, went out of his way to increase the University’s litigation costs. The University asserts in its complaint that the former coach ‘fled the hold’ on numerous occasions by needlessly and unnecessarily extending out the discovery process when he deliberately and knowingly failed to turn over “thousands of documents, text messages, and information about dozens of witnesses.”[15] In some of those texts, the University points out, the former coach stated that he wanted to embarrass the university, allegedly texting, “I love fighting” and “(expletive) those guys,” according to the lawsuit.[16]

All in all, the University of Pittsburgh has a tough match ahead in attempting to prove that Jason Peters’ act of filing a federal complaint based upon racial discrimination and breach of contract was grossly negligent. But if the University can, the State of Pennsylvania’s Dragonetti Act provides a viable opening for the University to attempt a ‘reversal’ against its former employee that would allow it to recoup some, if not all of the litigation costs it incurred in defending against the lawsuit which could possibly include attorneys’ fees and costs associated with discovery. The University of Pittsburgh may not end up “pinning” Jason Peters, but the “jury of appeal” may allow for a “major decision.”