Dawn suing Mizzou AD

[CL82]

Perhaps because she didn't directly accuse another coach of promoting an atmosphere of racism?

 

[j66kicker]

I also think that the amount she is seeking in this frivolous lawsuit just seems like a weird amount. Is there a cap on this type of (frivolous) lawsuit in SC?
Cause like my pappy use to say, "go big or go home!".

I know, right? Seems like if she really had a case she should go for $75 million, not $75,000.

 

[BigBird]

The first test of “actual malice” (uttering falsely and knowing it to be false at the time) is such a tall test that it is met in comparatively few circumstances. The second test, “reckless disregard for truth” is also a very tall order (as it should be when the plaintiff is a public figure). If the defendant made his summary judgments (about the “atmosphere” and that Dawn promoted it) without ANY reasonable facts or even personal experiences or observations, Dawn has a shot. Otherwise, this suit is a waste of the court’s time. Further, to collect any damages, she must show that the AD’s remarks actually caused demonstrable harm to her. Defense council is likely to argue that this bit of legal theater has actually HELPED Dawn and SC by arousing and rallying the SC fanbase and cementing further Dawn’s “fighter” image. No damage equals no case.

I should add that defamation law is a matter for each state to determine, according to its own laws and procedures. Most states are very similar in this regard, but exceptions exist. For example, in most states, truth is an ultimate defense. But in Louisiana it is not.

And...defamation is the broad classification. It has two sub-types, libel and slander. Typically, libel is published (in some fixed or far-reaching form), while slander is typically spoken and/or ad libbed. Of the two, libel is considered the more severe act, as the potential for damage is greater (because the words don’t immediately evaporate as they are said). For this reason, in most states, a broadcast of defamatory remarks is classified as libel.

This is a good thread. Many interesting and thoughtful posts.

 

[Bigboote]

If one has a kid who reads lips, could one sue a basketball coach because of the child-inappropriate language she's obviously shouting during a television broadcast? Or the broadcaster since they know there will be a nonstop stream and they show her anyway?

 

[01Neaggrad02]

The first test of “actual malice” (uttering falsely and knowing it to be false at the time) is such a tall test that it is met in comparatively few circumstances. The second test, “reckless disregard for truth” is also a very tall order (as it should be when the plaintiff is a public figure). If the defendant made his summary judgments (about the “atmosphere” and that Dawn promoted it) without ANY reasonable facts or even personal experiences or observations, Dawn has a shot. Otherwise, this suit is a waste of the court’s time. Further, to collect any damages, she must show that the AD’s remarks actually caused demonstrable harm to her. Defense council is likely to argue that this bit of legal theater has actually HELPED Dawn and SC by arousing and rallying the SC fanbase and cementing further Dawn’s “fighter” image. No damage equals no case.

I should add that defamation law is a matter for each state to determine, according to its own laws and procedures. Most states are very similar in this regard, but exceptions exist. For example, in most states, truth is an ultimate defense. But in Louisiana it is not.

And...defamation is the broad classification. It has two sub-types, libel and slander. Typically, libel is published (in some fixed or far-reaching form), while slander is typically spoken and/or ad libbed. Of the two, libel is considered the more severe act, as the potential for damage is greater (because the words don’t immediately evaporate as they are said). For this reason, in most states, a broadcast of defamatory remarks is classified as libel.

This is a good thread. Many interesting and thoughtful posts.

I like how you explained it. It was what I was going for, but your post is much more eloquent

 

[BigBird]

If one has a kid who reads lips, could one sue a basketball coach because of the child-inappropriate language she's obviously shouting during a television broadcast? Or the broadcaster since they know there will be a nonstop stream and they show her anyway?

Could you sue? Yes. Could you win such a case? Probably not. In civil courts, one can sue for anything, albeit only briefly.

While the FCC prohibits lewd, indecent, or profane language, these prohibitions only apply to over-air broadcast media. This regulation is supported by federal law (title 18 USC section 1464). Other electronic media must be (at least somewhat) concerned with other bodies of law and prosecutions.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

There has been some fine legal discussion here. I suspect, however, that Dawn's suit was not brought with great concern about winning or losing the legal battles.
Why do I say that? FIrst, the monetary damages sought are nominal. Smart move. It forecloses rants about her presumably doing this for money. Next, her lawyers will have opportunities to force the AD to state in court that his "facts", if any, were hearsay.

As I see it—you folks will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong—she is seeking to put a spotlight on the issuer of unfounded insults. If she does that, she will have won this round.

As to whether or not the SC fans behaved badly, I don't know. I wasn't there.
But that is not the subject of the suit. Remember, it hinges on whether or not
Dawn Staley promoted ugly behavior by the fans.

The crowd definitely had an edge that day and was very, very vocal. That was very unusual because of the average age of WBB fans. The edgy atmosphere, however, was not because of Dawn, but because of clips distributed by fans from the first game at Mizzou where there were many instances of extracurricular activity. If you compare to FB and MBB, though, it would have been typical of a game against a top rival.

 

[PhillyCoach]

I don't have a definitive answer to this, but, could one say that the Head Coach has the ultimate power and control of the crowd?
The coach could either encourage the wild atmosphere, discourage it, or not discourage it. I have seen all three.
There have been many coaches who grabbed the mic and controlled the crowd.
Coming from North Philly, Dawn has an edge because you need an edge. For some it is difficult to move out of that space. In addition, Dawn's key mentor was John Chaney. Chaney was as hard-nosed as any coach in America. He was a street fighter until the very end. Dawn is not a Southern California girl.
I can see where there are many viewpoints on this one.

 

[CL82]

If one has a kid who reads lips, could one sue a basketball coach because of the child-inappropriate language she's obviously shouting during a television broadcast? Or the broadcaster since they know there will be a nonstop stream and they show her anyway?

So this reminds of a well know Jim Calhoun story. Early on in his tenure at UConn the AD (John Toner, I believe) comes into Calhoun's office to tell him that some of his players parents, who were seated behind the UConn bench, were offended by his language. Much to Toner's surprise Calhoun offers no objection and tells him that he understands and will take care of it. Toner, grateful that the awkward conversation went so well, thanked him and left.

The next game the parents were seated on the opposite side of the arena.

 

[JellyBean]

Good Lord. Come on, Dawn.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I know, right? Seems like if she really had a case she should go for $75 million, not $75,000.

If she asked for more than $75,000, the case would be subject to be removed to Federal Court, where a federal judge would be about ten times more likely to dismiss her case as a state court judge would be.

This whole thing has been so painful. What was, I thought, a sort of fun rivalry is really descending into pettiness.

The AD should have issued a statement clarifying what I think is pretty obvious -- he didn't intend to suggest that Dawn Staley had encouraged the fans to make racial slurs or spit on players and he of course apologizes for any insinuation that she did. But no, everyone's dander was up so he had to be pigheaded about it.

I think USC should have left it with the SEC office. The lawsuit is way too much. I think it probably does more to damage Staley's reputation than the comments ever had any chance of doing.

Hopefully, the AD will take the sensible approach and issue the clarifying statement and this will be done. If not, I'm sure there will be motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and probably one at some point aimed at testing the sufficiency of the pleadings. What a colossal waste of time, IMO.

That said, I'll happily watch a rematch.

 

[HuskyNan]

If she asked for more than $75,000, the case would be subject to be removed to Federal Court, where a federal judge would be about ten times as likely to dismiss her case as a state court judge.

This whole thing has been so painful. What was, I thought, a sort of fun rivalry is really descending into pettiness.

The AD should have issued a statement clarifying what I think is pretty obvious -- he didn't intend to suggest that Dawn Staley had encouraged the fans to make racial slurs or spit on players and he of course apologizes for any insinuation that she did. But no, everyone's dander was up so he had to be pigheaded about it.

I think USC should have left it with the SEC office. The lawsuit is way too much. I think it probably does more to damage Staley's reputation than the comments ever had any chance of doing.

Hopefully, the AD will take the sensible approach and issue the clarifying statement and this will be done. If not, I'm sure there will be motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and probably one at some point aimed at testing the sufficiency of the pleadings. What a colossal waste of time, IMO.

That said, I'll happily watch a rematch.

The situation reminds me of Cappiegate, except Geno didn’t sue. It was still pretty ugly and I don’t believe Geno ever got a public apology. I do believe he got a private one, though

Big East commish clears Auriemma

 

[sharris952]

The situation reminds me of Cappiegate, except Geno didn’t sue. It was still pretty ugly and I don’t believe Geno ever got a public apology. I do believe he got a private one, though

Big East commish clears Auriemma

The problem is that the lawsuit is more about principal than anything thus the meager $75,000. As stated in the lawsuit all Dawn wanted was a retraction and/or apology for an unfounded accusation. If the Mizz could prove it, his arrogance would not have let him sit on said proof. Obviously, he was given a chance by the SEC commissioner and did not hence the $25,000 fine. I am African American and words and accusations like these normally come to often and go unpunished which cuts a little deeper especially when it involves this particular racial epithet and spitting which is the lowest form of degradation possible imo. This accusation was reported on the ESPN crawler, USA today, Washington Post, and in New York Times. I am sorry that Dawn will not just move on but frankly, I don't think she should. As I stated, what he said about an African American woman whose team in majority African American cuts deep and unless you have been where she has been and built your life around her service to country and the game of basketball, you cannot relate. No she will not just go away and shut up. If nothing else, the judge or proceedings will at least establish no proof of his insane accusations that I feel were meant to endure himself to his fanbase, yet in a very foolish and irresponsible way.

 

[HuskyNan]

The problem is that the lawsuit is more about principal than anything thus the meager $75,000. As stated in the lawsuit all Dawn wanted was a retraction and/or apology for an unfounded accusation. If the Mizz could prove it, his arrogance would not have let him sit on said proof. Obviously, he was given a chance by the SEC commissioner and did not hence the $25,000 fine. I am African American and words and accusations like these normally come to often and go unpunished which cuts a little deeper especially when it involves this particular racial epithet and spitting which is the lowest form of degradation possible imo. This accusation was reported on the ESPN crawler, USA today, Washington Post, and in New York Times. I am sorry that Dawn will not just move on but frankly, I don't think she should. As I stated, what he said about an African American woman whose team in majority African American cuts deep and unless you have been where she has been and built your life around her service to country and the game of basketball, you cannot relate. No she will not just go away and shut up. If nothing else, the judge or proceedings will at least establish no proof of his insane accusations that I feel were meant to endure himself to his fanbase, yet in a very foolish and irresponsible way.

Win or lose, Dawn isn't going to get what she wants and she might, in fact, make things worse. You can't bully, legislate, or preach someone into tolerance or respect. This lawsuit may be one of principal for Dawn, but to everyone but South Carolina fans she looks petty and petulant.

 

[HopJim]

Win or lose, Dawn isn't going to get what she wants and she might, in fact, make things worse. You can't bully, legislate, or preach someone into tolerance or respect. This lawsuit may be one on principal for Dawn, but to everyone but South Carolina fans she looks petty and petulant.

Everyone is losing on this one.

 

[shizam]

Did we sue Tennessee over their comments about Maya or were we unable to because they did it behind closed doors like cowards. Have to give the Mizz AD credit for doing it in public....
That being said... Anyone have the game on the internet for us to watch? I would love to see the crowd again. From what I remember seeing the crowd was very loud and non to pleasant. I will not say I agree with the assessment but I will not say it is without merit either.

Have people heard the AD’s radio appearance? It was done in a very low key manner and tone. This by itself doesn’t change anything but you can tell by his tone he wasn’t out of control and emotional. I think the AD is going to come out fine. He sounded very reasonable and without malice which doesn’t change his words but shows he wasn’t out to get her. I think he believes she actually did contribute to the situation.

 

[UConnNick]

I stand by my original post, a frivolous lawsuit.

Staley is a public figure. It is much tougher to prove a defamation case against a public figure because the burden of proof is much higher. You have to prove malice and a total disregard for the truth. What makes it even tougher is proving that she suffered some economic consequences due to her reputation being besmirched. She's not about to lose her job, and she's certainly not going to be able to prove she would not get another job because of it, so exactly how has she been harmed? I don't have anything against her. She's an Olympian, great coach, has a great program, and pulled herself off the mean streets of Philly, but this comes off as though she's a five year old kid who didn't like getting sand kicked in her face at the playground.

 

[BiscuitEater]

Think NEITHER side got the message after .. 'The SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey issued a statement on the matter on Feb. 1, saying: “I have had discussions with athletics directors at both institutions. Competition among SEC teams is highly intense but can never compromise the expectation of respect between our institutions.'

MIZ AD didn't back down or retract and got popped with a $25K fine. Dawn didn't back down and filed suit. Stankey then popped USCe with a "mandated a Conference office-led review of South Carolina’s game management procedures and visiting team security."

 

[UConnNick]

In addition to being part of common parlance, "frivolous" is a legal term of art. If you are using it as the latter , I'm afraid you are mistaken. A frivolous lawsuit is one filed with no factual basis for the allegations. Filing a frivolous action can lead to sanctions being imposed on both the plaintiff and her attorney (which is why the attorney's reputation for probity matters. A lawyer who values his/her reputation is not inclined to file a frivolous suit). In this case, if Dawn did not intentionally create the atmosphere described by the AD, she has a factual basis for the second element of her claim. With respect to her allegation that the AD knew that his statement was false, or acted in reckless disregard for the truth, the court will of necessity require little by way of factual basis at the outset of the litigation . That is because the third element turns on the defendant's mindset, something that is virtually impossible for a plaintiff to know or show directly. Discovery may turn up damning comments by the AD, or facts from which the requisite mindset can be inferred. Or maybe not. I think that the complaint alleges enough to get in the door under the circumstances, hence is not frivolous. Dawn's motivations for bringing the lawsuit are legally irrelevant. That said, it strikes me that seeking an apology is morally a better reason than seeking revenge. As is seeking to reform a broken system. Finally, one of the social functions of injury to reputation cases is that they provide a public mechanism for assessing and deciding how members of a society ought to treat one another. That is something to be valued, not sneered at.

Most if not all states have a rule of civil procedure which gives judges the right to throw out cases on the grounds of being determined as frivolous. Some may provide for sanctions against the attorney(s) involved for filing the case. As a practical matter, judges almost never invoke the rule because it puts them in the position of summarily deciding a case has no merit without any proof being offered or heard. They are much more inclined to let the cases proceed. They can always rule on a case at hearing prior to a trial if either or both sides file for a summary judgment, and that gives the losing side the right to appeal the decision.

In a case such as this one, it wouldn't surprise me if one or both sides do file for a SJ, and the judge might be inclined to throw it out, but give them the opportunity to get locked in a room until a settlement can be hammered out. If both sides agree to a settlement, they'll put a gag order on it so nobody gets to make public statements about it after the fact, and everybody moves on.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Most if not all states have a rule of civil procedure which gives judges the right to throw out cases on the grounds of being determined as frivolous. Some may provide for sanctions against the attorney(s) involved for filing the case. As a practical matter, judges almost never invoke the rule because it puts them in the position of summarily deciding a case has no merit without any proof being offered or heard. They are much more inclined to let the cases proceed. They can always rule on a case at hearing prior to a trial if either or both sides file for a summary judgment, and that gives the losing side the right to appeal the decision.

In a case such as this one, it wouldn't surprise me if one or both sides do file for a SJ, and the judge might be inclined to throw it out, but give them the opportunity to get locked in a room until a settlement can be hammered out. If both sides agree to a settlement, they'll put a gag order on it so nobody gets to make public statements about it after the fact, and everybody moves on.

If I have a dream tonight that I'm back in the courtroom, standing in font of a judge, with no clothes on I'll be coming for you and Crossover!

 

[Crossover]

If I have a dream tonight that I'm back in the courtroom, standing in font of a judge, with no clothes on I'll be coming for you and Crossover!

Ah yes, that dream. Am having flashbacks . Retirement is a good thing.

 

[UConnNick]

If I have a dream tonight that I'm back in the courtroom, standing in font of a judge, with no clothes on I'll be coming for you and Crossover!

Ah yes, that dream. Am having flashbacks . Retirement is a good thing.

You're the lucky ones. Some of us are still stuck having to fight these wars.

 

[shizam]

The problem is that the lawsuit is more about principal than anything thus the meager $75,000. As stated in the lawsuit all Dawn wanted was a retraction and/or apology for an unfounded accusation. If the Mizz could prove it, his arrogance would not have let him sit on said proof. Obviously, he was given a chance by the SEC commissioner and did not hence the $25,000 fine. I am African American and words and accusations like these normally come to often and go unpunished which cuts a little deeper especially when it involves this particular racial epithet and spitting which is the lowest form of degradation possible imo. This accusation was reported on the ESPN crawler, USA today, Washington Post, and in New York Times. I am sorry that Dawn will not just move on but frankly, I don't think she should. As I stated, what he said about an African American woman whose team in majority African American cuts deep and unless you have been where she has been and built your life around her service to country and the game of basketball, you cannot relate. No she will not just go away and shut up. If nothing else, the judge or proceedings will at least establish no proof of his insane accusations that I feel were meant to endure himself to his fanbase, yet in a very foolish and irresponsible way.

I’m glad she is filing if we can get specifics from the Mizzou AD on what he thinks she did.

 

[CL82]

Win or lose, Dawn isn't going to get what she wants and she might, in fact, make things worse. You can't bully, legislate, or preach someone into tolerance or respect. This lawsuit may be one of principal for Dawn, but to everyone but South Carolina fans she looks petty and petulant.

Sure she is. She is sending a very clear and unequivocal message that she isn't going to sit quietly if you accuse her of racism. If she took the high road and said nothing, some would take it as a tacit acknowledgement that there was some truth in the accusation. I applaud her for choosing not to be quietly victimized.

 

[Centerstream]

I’m glad she is filing if we can get specifics from the Mizzou AD on what he thinks she did.

Oh, that's a good reason to waste the court's time...