By John Miller, Ph.D., Professor, Sport Management, University of Southern Mississippi
From 2004 until 2019, Patrick Murtha worked under contract for the Rossford Exempted Village Schools in various capacities including assistant principal and athletic director (Murtha v.
Rossford Village Schools, 2021). In late January 2019, several members of the school’s cheerleading squad inquired to athletic director Murtha about ordering new uniforms (Thomas-Baird, 2020). Since the request was not in line with the uniform rotation followed by the school, Murtha denied the request. About one week after the denial, one of the upset cheerleaders mentioned in a class that she would retaliate against Murtha for not allowing the purchase of new cheerleading uniforms (Thomas-Baird, 2020). As a result, in February 2019, a group of female students complained that Murtha harassed them by inappropriately touching their hair, faces, and shoulders (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021).
Anti-Harassment Investigation
To resolve the issue, Rossford’s administration began an investigation of the female students’ allegations and placed Murtha on paid administrative leave (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021). The results of the investigation revealed that the allegations made by the female students were consistent, credible, and corroborated. Thus, the report surmised that discipline against Murtha was warranted as it applied to Rossford’s anti-harassment policy. The investigation also revealed similar misconduct allegations had been levied against Murtha at a different school previous to his employment at Rossford. These allegations resulted in Murtha being asked to leave the previous school due to inappropriately harassing conduct toward female students (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021).
However, it is important to note that the investigation was conducted under the Rossford Schools Anti-Harassment Policy. Furthermore, the investigation reported that while Murtha did not engage in sexual harassment as defined in that policy, he engaged in inappropriate conduct, including unwanted touching of students’ hair and or shoulders (Caldwell, 2019). Finally, Murtha contended that he was never provided a copy of the allegations against him, nor was he provided a disciplinary hearing (Thomas-Baird, 2020).
Transition Agreement
During the investigation, Murtha commenced negotiations for a Transition Agreement with Rossford’s School District Board (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021). In this case, a Transition Agreement would permit Murtha to finish his existing contract with Rossford while working from his home. Additionally, Murtha would not seek further employment with the Rossford School District (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021). The agreement revealed that there would not be any record of disciplinary nature in his personnel file. Additionally, it is significant to note that the School Board did not report that Murtha engaged in any conduct that would require discipline or termination of his contract (Thomas-Baird, 2020). Moreover, Murtha was able to have access to the school’s property and School Board would provide a letter of reference on his behalf (Caldwell, 2019). Additionally, the agreement indicated that none of the involved parties would admit to any misconduct after the Transmission Agreement. Finally
The Transition Agreement detailed that the School Board would not retaliate against Murtha or his family.
Interestingly, after the Transition Agreement had been completed, the Rossford Schools, the Rossford School Board, and Superintendent Dan Creps individually and collectively circulated the investigation report contending that discipline was justified because Murtha had been involved in many disturbing occasions of misconduct (Thomas-Baird, 2020). Murtha asserted in his lawsuit that that information released to the public was false, damaged his reputation, and marred future employment opportunities without an adequate explanation. Furthermore, Murtha related that the statements, especially in a public forum, contradicted the terms of the Transition Agreement (Thomas-Baird, 2020).
Murtha Lawsuit
Due to his identity becoming public, Murtha sued Rossford Schools, the Rossford Board, and Superintendent Creps in federal court for $1 million (Thomas-Baird, 2020). Murtha asked the defendants to “publicly recant defamatory and false statements; that any material in his personnel file be expunged; that he be awarded civil and compensatory damages in excess of $1 million; that he be awarded punitive damages in excess of $1 million; and that defendants pay his costs for this action” (Thomas-Baird, 2020, para. 4). In particular, Murtha alleged that these parties violated due process as indicated under the Fourteenth Amendment because he allegedly never received any copies of the complaints nor was provided a disciplinary hearing (Thomas-Baird, 2020). Curiously, the lawsuit Murtha filed did not include retaliation.
Procedural Due Process Fourteenth Amendment
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow States to deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1). To prove deprivation of procedural due process rights, Murtha needed to show that he was deprived of an individual interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment protection elements of the of ‘life, liberty, or property” (Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 2006, pp. 233-234). Secondly, Murtha needed to prove that the procedures accessible to him did not offer ‘due process of law'” (Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 2006, pp. 233-234)
The Court needed to ascertain whether the state actually denied or impeded Murtha’s ability to have sufficient life, liberty, or property interest to activate due process protection (Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 1972). It is here that the Transition Agreement provided significant background information. When Murtha willingly decided to renew his employment contract with Rossford, he surrendered any constitutionally protected interest that may have provided him aid under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, in his effort to perhaps protect his identity from public consumption by negotiating a Transition Agreement with the Rossford School Board, Murtha appeared to indicate that he was willing to separate himself from the school. As a result, Murtha’s life, liberty, nor property interest would not be negatively impacted (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021).
Property Interests
Murtha also contended he had a property interest in his sustained employment as an administrator for Rossford. Such a contention was predicated on the Transition Agreement leading to his leaving the school. He further alleged that his employment contract, in addition to Ohio state law, generated a property interest for which he cannot be deprived without a hearing. According to the Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), to have a property interest in a benefit, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it” (p. 408).
While it may have been asserted that Murtha had a property interest before signing the Transition Agreement, he waived that interest when he freely consented to not apply for the renewal of his employment contract. In essence, Murtha negotiated away any claim that the Rossford School Board breached Ohio state law by constraining contract non-renewal to a good and just cause. Furthermore, Murtha appeared to accept the Transition Agreement in exchange for the promise that the Rossford School Board would supply a positive reference for future employment opportunities Murtha may pursue. As a result, Murtha surrendered any property right he may have had that would connect the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Informational Privacy
The constitutional right to informational privacy is based on the “right to be let alone” (Pittman, 2018). If employed without approval, the information may be embarrassing or harmful to the person’s reputation or future employment opportunities (Pittman, 2018). Murtha alleged a property interest from informational privacy through the state of Ohio confidentiality laws. In particular, Murtha contested Rossford’s release of the Transition Agreement, the investigator’s report to the public, and Superintendent Creps’s release of a letter for a similar reason. The Murtha court revealed that none of the actions followed by these parties violated the conditions of either the Transition Agreement or any Ohio state laws. Moreover, had the actions had violated state law, they could not approach the level of being constitutionally protected interests. In Kaplan v. University of Louisville (2021), employers were found to have no affirmative duty to advise employees about their potential entitlement to a name-clearing hearing
Conclusion
The origin of this case began due to Mr. Murtha denying a request by several of the school’s cheerleading for new uniforms. Murtha followed the policy, established by the school, in which uniforms for school-sponsored activities could only be purchased during certain years (Thomas-Baird, 2020). After the request was denied, one of the cheerleaders mentioned in class that she would retaliate against Murtha (Thomas-Baird, 2020). Approximately one week after the denial of uniforms, the cheerleaders reported that Murtha had harassed them by inappropriately touching their hair, faces, and shoulders. Thus, the school investigated the matter and found evidence that Murtha had harassed the students, albeit not in a sexual manner. The results of the investigation were compounded when it was revealed that Murtha had previously been found to have committed similar harassment actions at another school (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021). As a result, information regarding these findings was made public by members of the school, school board, and superintendent, despite the terms outlined in the Transition Agreement (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021).
Rather curiously, Murtha did not allege retaliation on the part of Rossford Schools, School Board, or Superintendent. Instead, Murtha contended a liberty interest was in his name, reputation, honor, and integrity (Murtha v. Rossford Village Schools, 2021). However, because Murtha voluntarily collaborated on the Transition Agreement with the School Board to not seek renewal of his position as athletic director, the Court ruled that he had no liberty interest in his reputation that would have implicated due process. Furthermore, the Court cited Paul v. Davis (1976) that explained that defamation by itself is inadequate to give rise to the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Murtha was not terminated, demoted, or discharged, rather he willingly agreed to not renew his contract, his legal status regarding an alleged stigma did not change. As a result, Murtha could not claim that Rossford took hostile employment action against him. The Court concluded that Murtha’s constitutional claims could not be granted and dismissed the additional state law claims without prejudice.
References
Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 570 n.7, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972).
Caldwell, B. (2019, April 23). Rossford Schools Board accepted resignation of Athletic Director. https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/rossford-schools-accepted-resignation-of-athletic- director/512-a5ab3cfe-f1e9-4ad8-903f-3c3fc0e7b99d
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2006).
Kaplan v. University of Louisville, 10 F.4th 569, 579 (6th Cir. 2021).
Murtha v. Rossford Exempted Village Schools, 2021 U.S. District LEXIS 207737 (N.D. Ohio, April 7, 2021).
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S. Ct. 1155, 47 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1976).
Pittman, L. J. (2018). The elusive constitutional right to informational privacy. Nevada Law Journal, 19, 135-186.
Thomas-Baird, M. (2020, June 3). Former Rossford schools AD seeks $1M in damages. Sentinel-Tribune.com. https://www.sent-trib.com/community/former-rossford-schools- ad-seeks-1m-in-damages/article_d550b21a-a5a3-11ea-9b67-fb59df8c5bdb.html
