By Gary Chester, Senior Writer
The article was entitled, “Is the era of abusive college coaches finally coming to an end?” It was a comprehensive look at coaching abuses against male and female college athletes published by Sports Illustrated on September 29, 2015. The author raised the hope that access to social media would curb abuse in the coaching profession. But a California case, Galic v. Goodenbour, 2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5440, August 29, 2025, serves as a reminder that abusive coaching persists.
Marta and Marija Galic are sisters who grew up playing basketball in Croatia. They were offered basketball scholarships by the University of San Francisco’s women’s basketball coach, Molly Goodenbour. They accepted.
The abuse started early in their freshman year. Goodenbour showered Marta with hurtful names such as “lazy, worthless, piece of shit, dramatic, pathetic, fucking dramatic, fucking pathetic, [and] quitter.” The coach once called Marta a “fucking idiot” after Marta was hit in the kidney by a large male practice player. Although she was in visible pain, Marta completed the drill. Later, she urinated blood.
Goodenbour and an associate coach were abusive during USF games. Goodenbour would yell, use profanities, throw things and kick chairs, often getting technical fouls. Both coaches verbally abused Marta during games and practices, making the player anxious and nervous. At the end of the 2018 season, in which the team finished 16-15, Goodenbour threatened to revoke Marta’s scholarship or not give her significant playing time to make it difficult to transfer. Taking away an athletic scholarship based on athletic performance is a violation of NCAA rules.
When Marija arrived at USF for her freshman year, she was coming off a ruptured calf injury and was not at the same conditioning level as the rest of the team. Goodenbour called her names such as “stupid, fucking idiot, pussy, piece of shit,” and the like. Goodenbour treated the sisters in this manner for three years. In addition, Goodenbour ignored practice limitations imposed by the trainers after Marija suffered a back injury. The coaches threatened to take away her scholarship and send her back to Croatia.
Marija met with USF’s sports psychologist and reported Goodenbour’s conduct. She also discussed Goodenbour’s abusive behavior with the USF athletic director, Joan McDermott. (The University took no action, as Goodenbour remains the coach despite producing only three winning seasons in eight years.) Marija suffered anxiety and depression. She left USF but continued to struggle with nightmares, suicidal thoughts, and feeling worthless.
The Sisters take USF to a Different Type of Court
In 2021, the Galic sisters filed a complaint against Goodenbour for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and against Goodenbour and USF for negligence. The sisters sought compensatory and punitive damages for Goodenbour’s verbally abusive conduct and for forcing them to play while injured; they alleged that USF was vicariously liable for much of Goodenbour’s conduct and was negligent in its supervision and retention of the coach.
In a ten-day trial held in 2023, Marta testified to Goodenbour’s abuse. She complained to an assistant coach who told her there was nothing he could do about it. None of the other coaches or athletic trainers acted. She said that McDermott attended practices and games. Marta testified that she did not use the mental health counseling center at USF, but she continued to experience flashbacks from her time at the school and struggles with its impact on her.
Marija testified that she met with Jim Campbell, USF’s head of compliance with the NCAA, and Diane Nelson, USF’s assistant vice-president of human resources, and told them how Goodenbour and the associate coach had been treating her. In 2021, Marija went to student counseling because she was having suicidal thoughts. She was depressed, went days without eating, had trouble sleeping, and lost 15 to 20 pounds. Marija did not make a report because she feared the consequences and thought no one would believe her.
The plaintiffs’ psychiatric expert, Dr. Jessica Holiday, testified that the sisters suffered from a stress-related disorder of a repetitive nature because of Goodenbour’s conduct and their exposure to USF basketball. Dr. Holiday predicted the sisters would continue to experience symptoms in the future.
Goodenbour testified that she may have told Marija she was not going to have a scholarship anymore if she continued to quit during drills. She acknowledged that coaches are not permitted to take away a multiyear scholarship for an athletically related reason. She vehemently denied calling people names. The associate coach, Janell Jones, testified that Goodenbour made a reference to taking away Marija’s scholarship, and said “something about” taking away Marta’s scholarship.
Additional witness testimony established that USF did not thoroughly investigate Marija’s allegations, and that Goodenbour did address profane and demeaning language towards the sisters.
The jury issued a split decision: it rejected Marta’s IIED and gross negligence claims but found in favor of Marija on identical causes of action. The jury concluded that both sisters had entered into an agreement to release USF and Goodenbour from negligence claims. The jury awarded Marija $250,000 in compensatory damages and concluded she was entitled to punitive damages. In a subsequent bifurcated proceeding, the jury awarded punitive damages of $500,000 against USF. Thereafter, USF filed a JNOV motion, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the punitive damages award. The trial judge agreed and vacated the punitive damages award. Both sisters appealed.
The Court of Appeals Calls a Foul on the Trial Judge
The appellate court noted that to establish a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.” The trial court correctly denied Marta’s JNOV motion because the jury seemingly rejected the medical testimony as it pertained to her. The court stated that a JNOV may only be granted if “there is no substantial evidence in support” of the verdict.
However, the court ordered a new trial on Marta’s negligence claims because the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury to consider an assumption of risk provision in a release that she signed as a student athlete. The release referenced certain risks resulting from “athletic participation” that were all physical in nature. The court observed that “Marta could not have been expected to anticipate or appreciate the risk of the psychological abuse she alleges, and to have assumed that risk through execution of the Release.” The trial judge improperly instructed the jury that if it found the release valid, the defendants could not be found liable unless they were grossly negligent or acted intentionally. In addition, the judge’s special verdict form was “hopelessly ambiguous.”
The appeals court also reversed the trial judge’s JNOV ruling against Marija that vacated the punitive damages award. The court found that the trial court “did not consider whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that Goodenbour was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice in her treatment of Marija.” The appellate court found that the coach’s name-calling, threats, and other outrageous conduct supported the jury’s finding of malice.
The court further held that USF could be held liable for punitive damages because McDermott was a “managing agent” of USF who knew Goodenbour was unfit and continued to employ her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of the women she coached. In addition, the jury could have reasonably concluded that USF failed to adequately investigate the charges against Goodenbour.
No new trial date has been set for Marta’s claims, but the verdict in Marija’s case would suggest that a settlement might benefit both parties.
