By Yeeun Jeong
On December 29, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeals of Utah released its ruling in Keisel & Huff v. Westbrook III & Jazz Basketball Investors INC (DBA the Utah Jazz). This legal issue involved Plaintiffs Shane Keisel and Jennifer Huff, and the Defendants Russell Westbrook III and Jazz Basketball Investors INC (DBA the Utah Jazz). Keisel and Huff filed a lawsuit against Westbrook and the Jazz, alleging “defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress” (p.13). The court, however, affirmed the dismissal of their claims (p.42).
In March 2019, Russell Westbrook and a Jazz fan, Shane Keisel, had an altercation during a game between the Oklahoma City Thunder and Utah Jazz (p.1). While Russell Westbrook and Shane Keisel had an altercation, one fan recorded Westbrook’s aggressive response (i.e., verbal exchange and video) using a cell phone (p.2). Westbrook apparently responded this way because he thought that Keisel said several racial comments (p.2). One fan who recorded this altercation sent the video to Keisel (p.4). In turn, Keisel sent this video to his friend and cousin (p.4). Keisel’s friend has an influential power in social media and his cousin uploaded this video on Twitter and sent it to a local news station, KSL (pp.4-5). Later, Keisel was invited for interviews by KSL and ESPN, which he accepted (p.5. Meanwhile, the Jazz investigated this case immediately and revealed that Keisel’s behavior violated standards as a fan (p.7). As a result of this violative behavior, the Jazz prohibited Keisel from watching home games permanently (p.2).
However, after this altercation, Keisel and his girlfriend, Jennifer Huff, suffered adverse influences (p.13). Keisel lost his job and opportunity to participate in the pilot training program, and Huff also lost his job because of the incident, resulting in claims that they had severe emotional distress (p.13).
In December 2019, Keisel and Huff, sued Westbrook and the Jazz “for defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress” (p.13). Their claims were (1) defamation against Westbrook based on his post-game statement in which he either expressly said or implied that Keisel and Huff had made statements that were racist in nature; (2) defamation against the Jazz based on their press releases and public statements that implied that the alleged offensive behavior was racism or racist commentary; (3) false light against both Westbrook and the Jazz based on Westbrook’s post-game statement and the Jazz’s email, press release, and public statement, which, according to the complaint, suggested that Keisel and Huff had acted as racists or had made racist statements; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress against both Westbrook and the Jazz based on Westbrook’s in-game statement, Westbrook’s post-game statement, and the Jazz’s corroborat[ion] of Westbrook’s post-game statement that Keisel and Huff had made racist comments (pp.13-14).
According to Utah law, “a statement is defamatory if it impeaches an individual’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation and thereby exposes the individual to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule” (p.17). Additionally, the plaintiff should demonstrate that the defendants distributed a statement that had content related to them, which was not true, damaged their reputation, and was not protected by any privilege (pp.17-18). In short, the plaintiff is required to prove that the statement was written with a certain level of fault and caused damage to them (pp.17-18). In conclusion, the district court stated that “while Westbrook’s in-game outburst was coarse and offensive, it did not as a matter of law rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to sustain an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim” (p.39). In addition, the court stressed that “Westbrook had no basis for realizing that his outburst was so severe that it might result in illness or bodily harm to Keisel or Huff for purposes of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim” (p.39). Finally, the judge agreed with the district court that “Westbrook’s outburst could not support a claim for either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress” (pp.41-42). Therefore, the courts affirmed the dismissal of claims by Keisel and Huff (p.42).
The significance of the case lies in its legal exploration of the boundaries surrounding in-stadium altercations and their ensuing legal consequences. The pronouncement made by the court could be a ‘stare decisis’ for future incidents related to professional athletes and fans, underlining the need for a careful examination of legal thresholds and an understanding of the implications of on-field behavior. The court’s emphasis on protecting constitutionally covered statements and requiring a certain level of fault for defamation claims contributes to the evolving legal landscape surrounding sports-related altercations.
Yeeun Jeong is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Sport Management at Florida State University.
References
Keisel & Huff v. Westbrook III & Jazz Basketball Investors INC (DBA the Utah Jazz), 2023 UT App. 163 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
