An Oklahoma appeals court has affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment to an association, finding that a tournament organizer was not acting within the scope of his employment with the United States Specialty Sports Association (USSSA) when he allegedly assaulted the wife of a coach, who was frustrated over his team’s disqualification from the tournament.
The court also affirmed a grant of summary judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light invasion of privacy, holding that the organizer’s alleged behavior was not so egregious as to trigger a question of liability.
The impetus for the dispute centered on a decision by Ted Cox, the Oklahoma State Director of USSSA, to suspend the Midwest City Outlaws, an eight-and-under baseball team, after the team was accused of using “an illegal player, had an incorrect roster, had no roster at all, had an unsigned roster or was otherwise in violation of some other rule of USSSA.”
In restating the plaintiff’s claim, the court wrote that “Cox ‘intentionally and recklessly forfeited’ the Outlaws’ game because he allowed two other teams to play in the tournament without abiding by the same rules he applied to the Outlaws.”
After Cox made his decision, plaintiffs Judy and Mike Warren went to Cox’s office to discuss the matter. “But Cox,” wrote the court, “would not rationally discuss the matter and he ‘suddenly, became enraged, jumping out of his chair and charging straight at Judy Warren, yelling and screaming at Mrs. Warren in a threatening and menacing manner. Mike Warren jumped in front of Judy Warren just as Cox got to her, pulled [her] away and both left Cox’s office immediately.
“‘ … All of the team members, and their parents and relatives, [including Plaintiffs], were extremely disappointed, upset and distraught.’ Cox’s allegations that the team and coaches had done something improper or against USSSA rules also embarrassed and humiliated the team, coaches, parents, and relatives.
“The plaintiffs suffer from ‘severe and ongoing’ emotional distress, including ‘grief, shame, humiliation, anger, disappointment and worry.’ The members of the team … ‘are still referred to as cheaters by members of the public … and the team’s reputation has been permanently damaged.’”
The plaintiffs named USSSA as a defendant based on the notion that Cox was an employee and agent and acting within the scope of his authority at all time relevant to the lawsuit.
The trial court dismissed the claims, sparking the present appeal.
In its analysis, the court described the USSSA as being a typical national, non-profit sports association, whose purpose is “to serve and perform as a multi-sports association by creating, promoting, and organizing programs in various sports.
“The organization has its own board of directors and national officers, and each individual sport has its own board of directors which appoints a state director for the individual sport. The state director, who is not an employee of USSSA and receives no compensation for his or her appointment, has the right to organize his or her state program. The state director both recruits league and non-league teams to register with USSSA and promotes USSSA sanctioned tournaments and awards and promotes the state tournament. The director creates state by-laws and tournament rules that govern how tournaments in the state are conducted. The director earns revenue by registering leagues and teams and generating tournament entry fees. The director retains a portion of the registration fee but must remit part of the registration fee and all of the sanctioning fees to USSSA. Each director ‘literally runs his own business.’”
As USSSA’s director for baseball in Oklahoma, Cox took that mandate to an extreme. In 1997, he established TCRG Sports, Inc., an Oklahoma company doing business as USSSA Baseball. “Cox collects a fee from local and state tournaments, and he keeps a portion and remits a portion to USSSA,” wrote the court. “He does not receive a wage or salary from USSSA, and it does not supervise or manage his operation.”
In the wake of the suit, USSSA argued that even if Cox took the actions alleged by plaintiffs and committed an assault, it could not be held liable for his actions, citing the theory of respondeat superior “because it had no involvement in the events that gave rise to the alleged assault, and Cox did not act in furtherance of any purpose of USSSA.”
The plaintiffs countered that “at all times relevant, Ted Cox was enforcing the rules and regulations of USSSA” which triggered liability.
Turning first to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court noted that liability for that tort has only been found where the offending conduct “has so totally and completely exceeded the bounds of acceptable social interaction that the law must provide redress. Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24, P33, 956 P.2d 887, 901.
“Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘Outrageous!’” Id.
In affirming the trial court’s decision on this tort, the court wrote that “Cox’s decision to require the Outlaws to forfeit a game after an official complaint was lodged against the team is not conduct that is so extreme and outrageous as to meet the standard for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cox’s actions did not so totally exceed the bounds of acceptable behavior that, upon a recitation of the facts, an average member of the community would exclaim ‘outrageous.’”
As for the plaintiff’s charge of a false light invasion of privacy, the court wrote that “the right of action for false light invasion of privacy is a product of the same societal need as the tort of outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress, which will lie only in the presence of extreme and outrageous conduct,” which did not exist in the instant case.
Turning finally to the alleged assault, the court wrote that “the undisputed facts show that USSSA cannot be held liable for the assault. USSSA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the assault was not within the scope of the alleged employment relationship between USSSA and Cox, and Cox was not acting in furtherance of any purpose of USSSA when he allegedly committed the assault.
“Although Mike and Judy Warren allege that ‘at relevant times’ Cox was acting as an employee and agent of USSSA, they did not allege that the assault occurred while Cox was actually engaged in USSSA’s business. They claim they went to Cox’s office to ‘find out what was going on,’ and Cox yelled and screamed at Judy Warren in a manner that was both threatening and menacing. The undisputed facts reveal that Cox’s office is ‘at a different location from the ball fields where the tournament was taking place.’ Plaintiffs do not contend that USSSA provides Cox with an office, nor that the office in which the alleged assault took place is even used by Cox to conduct USSSA business.”
Thus, it wrote that “the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of USSSA because the alleged assault did not occur while Cox was acting within the scope of his alleged employment or agency relationship.”
Mike Warren et al. v. United States Specialty Sports Association; Ct. Civ. App. Okla., Div. 2; Case No. 102,048; 2006 OK CIV APP 78; 2006 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 47; 6/27/06
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiffs) Steven M. Ditto, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, (for defendant) Bryan J. Wells, Billy M. Lewis, Conner & Winters, LLP, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
