By Rachel S. Silverman
Plaintiff Kylie McKenzie began playing tennis at the age of three and, by the age of nineteen, she had moved to Florida to train at Defendants’, United States Tennis Association (USTA), location in Orlando known as the USTA National Campus. While there, Plaintiff trained with USTA National Coach, Anibal Aranda (Coach Aranda). Coach Aranda had been an employee of the USTA for approximately seven years.
Coach Aranda’s behavior became unprofessional and inappropriate with Plaintiff. He inquired about her personal life, complimented her, and commented on her appearance. He stuck his hands under Plaintiff’s shirt and grabbed her stomach. His inappropriate behavior escalated. He pretended to help Plaintiff with her serving technique to create physical contact. He would grab her hips and move his hands down her groin and underwear line. Another time he knelt in front of Plaintiff as she was preparing to serve, held her hips, and looked directly at her vaginal area. He regularly slid his hands down Plaintiff’s butt when training her.
On November 9, 2018, Coach Aranda sat next to Plaintiff after practice, slid his hand under her towel resting on her lap, and started rubbing her vagina with his fingers. Plaintiff attempted to push him away, but he quickly grabbed her calves and knees and aggressively tried to massage them. He asked Plaintiff “what she wanted him to be,” and she replied, “only to be her tennis coach.” Coach Aranda told Plaintiff that he had the power to get Plaintiff sponsors and transform her career.
The next day, Plaintiff reported Coach Aranda’s sexual misconduct to Defendants. The United States Center for SafeSport (SafeSport) undertook an investigation. The investigation confirmed Coach Aranda’s behavior was inappropriate. It revealed he had a history of engaging in inappropriate behavior with a female employee, Jane Doe, in Defendants’ organization. This incident occurred in 2015 when a group of Defendants’ employees were in New York for the U.S. Open. The group went out for dinner and dancing, and Coach Aranda was “grinding” up against Jane Doe and touching her vagina outside her clothes. When Jane Doe attempted to leave, Coach Aranda followed her and tried to get in her cab. Jane Doe never reported the incident and did not take any measures to prevent it from repeating. Jane Doe became the Defendants’ Senior Manager of Player Development, Events, and Programming at the USTA National Campus. The investigation resulted in Coach Aranda’s termination.
Count I: Negligent Retention and Supervision
For negligent supervision or retention, the plaintiff must show a relationship that gives a legal duty to supervise, a negligent breach of that duty, and a proximate cause. Defendants claimed they did not know of the incidents involving Plaintiff and Coach Aranda. They did not know Coach Aranda would engage in inappropriate conduct. Since they had no previous suspicion of the coach, Defendants argued they could not have acted negligently in failing to investigate or discipline the coach. However, Plaintiff pointed out a prior inappropriate incident involving Defendants’ Senior Manager of Player Development, Events, and Programming (Jane Doe) and Coach Aranda.
SafeSport’s investigation revealed Coach Aranda had participated in prior unsolicited misconduct with Jane Doe. Jane Doe became a senior-level manager for Defendants and worked alongside Plaintiff and Coach Aranda. Therefore, it is likely that Defendants knew of Coach Aranda’s prior misconduct, and the court stated Plaintiff successfully pled a plausible claim for both negligent retention and supervision.
Count II: Battery
Defendants argued they could not be vicariously liable for the conduct Coach Aranda committed outside the scope of his employment, but the court disagreed. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for their employees’ acts if they are committed within the scope of their employment and to further a purpose or interest of the employer. Usually, sexual assaults and batteries by employees are considered outside the scope of an employee’s employment. However, Florida recognizes an exception if the employee accomplishes the misconduct by virtue of the employer/employee relationship. The court decided that Plaintiff’s allegations satisfied this exception. The court also stated Coach Aranda’s conduct occurred within the scope of his employment. One example was when Coach Aranda initiated inappropriate sexual contact while pretending to help Plaintiff with her serving technique. In another example, Coach Aranda inappropriately touched Plaintiff, claiming he could elevate her career if she continued training with him. The court concluded Coach Aranda’s behavior was directly assisted by virtue of his employment. Therefore, the court found Plaintiff’s allegations sufficient to state that Defendants may be held vicariously liable for Coach Aranda’s behavior, and Plaintiff has an adequate claim for battery.
Count III: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Defendants attempted to dismiss this count for the same reasons in Count II. Defendants’ claimed Coach Aranda’s actions were outside the scope of his employment, but for the same reasons mentioned in Count II, the court disagreed. Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not dismissed.
Count IV: Negligence
The requirements for a successful negligence claim are the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached the duty, the breach was the proximate cause of the injury, and the breach caused the plaintiff to suffer damages. Defendants explained the injury was unforeseeable, and thus they did not owe a duty to protect Plaintiff from the coach’s actions. The court disagreed.
The court explained that Plaintiff provided many allegations to support the reasonable foreseeability of the alleged harm. The world of sports has encountered many highly publicized cases of coaches molesting minor athletes. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) insisted Defendants implement measures to strengthen the protection of young athletes. Defendants resisted some of the recommended changes by USOC, including refusing to prohibit coaches from engaging in romantic relationships with athletes. Due to many allegations of sexual misconduct from coaches in the sports world, Coach Aranda’s acts were foreseeable. Also, as previously mentioned, the inappropriate sexual encounter between Jane Doe, a senior-level manager, and Coach Aranda made the coach’s behavior foreseeable. The court concluded Plaintiff had successfully pled to a negligence claim.
Count V: Respondeat Superior
Defendants argued the doctrine of respondeat theory is not a separate cause of action but rather a theory of liability. The court agreed and therefore dismissed Count V.
Count VI: Punitive Damages
Defendants wanted to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages because they were unaware of Coach Aranda’s misconduct until Plaintiff reported it, and then Defendants fired him. However, the court infers Defendants knew of Coach Aranda’s behavior from his history with Jane Doe and her position in Senior Management and yet continued to employ him in a position of power. Also, Defendants resisted the USOC’s recommended implementation of related safety measures. Thus, the court can reasonably state that Defendants knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to the conduct. Also, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendants acted with reckless disregard in failing to provide adequate protective measures for athletes and not taking preventive actions after Jane Doe’s incident with Coach Aranda. The court determined Plaintiff has a plausible claim for punitive damages.
Motion to Strike
Defendants moved to strike references to SafeSport’s investigations and the terms “sexual assault” and “sexual battery.” The court found no allegations that necessitate striking. The court explained SafeSport’s report is integral because it shows a highly contested issue, and juries are only exposed to admissible evidence. The court can separate allegations from facts, supported by evidence, that will emerge later in the proceedings. The references to SafeSport’s report do not create an unfair prejudicial effect and therefore do not warrant striking.
Defendants argued that “sexual battery” and “sexual assault” are scandalous misnomers, but the court disagreed. There is no case law to support this statement. Sexual battery and sexual assault do not only include rape. The terms encompass a broad spectrum of offensive touching without consent. The court did not find anything that warranted striking.
In conclusion, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint or Motion to Strike Certain Allegations was granted in part and denied in part.
Reference: McKenzie v. United States Tennis Ass’n Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71181
