By Mark D. Shirian. Esq.
(Editor’s Note: Shirian is the attorney representing the plaintiff in the case.)
Connor Calkins, a promising Division I wrestler at Binghamton University, entered collegiate athletics with aspirations of excelling at the highest level. Instead, he encountered a culture of physical and psychological harm, including grueling and hazardous practices such as “I Quit” matches. These sessions, which required wrestlers to continue until one could no longer compete, often resulted in injuries and emotional distress. For Calkins, the environment was not only degrading but also unsafe, culminating in an incident where his coach, Matthew Dernlan, allegedly directed another teammate to physically assault him. Ultimately, the toxicity of the program forced Calkins to transfer to a Division III school, where he lost his scholarship and the opportunity to wrestle at the highest collegiate level.
Institutional Accountability in the Court of Claims
The lawsuit against the State University of New York (SUNY) was brought in the New York State Court of Claims, which exclusively handles claims against state entities. This procedural requirement precluded suing individuals such as Dernlan in this forum, necessitating a separate action against the coach. The focus of the Court of Claims case was SUNY’s alleged negligence in supervising its wrestling program and ensuring the safety of its student-athletes.
The court’s denial of SUNY’s motion for summary judgment on negligence marked a significant step forward. Evidence presented raised questions about whether SUNY failed to adequately oversee its employees and allowed unsafe practices, such as “I Quit” matches, to persist unchecked. These matches, while defended by some as a traditional test of toughness, were closely scrutinized for their risks to athlete safety and the potential breach of SUNY’s duty of care.
Another pivotal issue was whether SUNY violated its obligations under Calkins’s athletic scholarship. While the University offered to honor the scholarship after Coach Dernlan’s resignation, the hostile environment had made it untenable for Calkins to remain at Binghamton. Ultimately, the court dismissed this claim, ruling that SUNY’s offer fulfilled its contractual obligations, even if the toxic environment necessitated Calkins’s transfer.
The Court of Claims case will now proceed to trial. Notably, trials in the Court of Claims are heard before a judge, as juries are not permitted in this forum. The outcome will hinge on the court’s assessment of whether SUNY breached its duty to protect Calkins from harm.
Personal Accountability in New York Supreme Court
Parallel to the Court of Claims case, the lawsuit against Coach Matthew Dernlan in New York Supreme Court focuses on his direct actions and their impact on Calkins. This case will proceed to trial before a jury, which will evaluate whether Dernlan’s conduct constituted negligence, assault, and the negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Central to this case is the November 2017 incident in which Dernlan allegedly instructed another wrestler to punch Calkins. Although the punch was never thrown, the court recognized that Dernlan’s directive created a reasonable apprehension of harm, satisfying the criteria for assault. The court also allowed claims of negligence and emotional distress to move forward, citing evidence that Dernlan’s coaching methods, including prolonged “I Quit” matches and fostering an abusive environment, may have breached his duty of care to Calkins.
Wrestling’s Physicality and Legal Boundaries
A recurring theme in both cases is the tension between the inherent physicality of wrestling and the legal and ethical limits of coaching practices. Wrestling is a sport that demands mental toughness and physical endurance, but the courts emphasized that these attributes must not come at the expense of athlete safety. While some testimony described practices like “I Quit” matches as traditional, the courts scrutinized whether such methods exposed athletes to unnecessary risks or deviated from acceptable norms.
The evolving recognition of emotional and psychological harm as actionable injuries reflects broader societal changes in how athlete well-being is valued. These cases serve as a reminder that institutions and coaches must adapt to modern expectations of safety and dignity, ensuring that the competitive nature of sports does not justify harmful practices.
Trials Ahead
With both cases now headed to trial, the procedural differences between the forums underscore the complexities of litigating against public institutions and their employees. The Court of Claims case will be decided by a judge, whose findings will center on the evidence of SUNY’s institutional negligence. In contrast, the state case against Dernlan will be presented before a jury, where the personal impact of his actions on Calkins will likely play a central role.
These trials represent critical opportunities to set precedents in the realm of collegiate athletics. They highlight the need for clearer boundaries between rigorous coaching and abusive behavior, as well as the importance of institutional accountability in preventing harm to student-athletes.
Advocating for Systemic Change
Representing Connor Calkins in these cases has been a powerful opportunity to push for systemic reform in collegiate athletics. The legal challenges he has faced reflect the broader struggle to balance the demands of competitive sports with the fundamental rights of athletes.
As an attorney specializing in sports injury litigation, hazing, and personal injury, I am committed to fighting for fairness and accountability in sports. These cases remind us that the safety and dignity of athletes must always come first.
