Kanye Clary, a former student-athlete and captain of the Pennsylvania State University men’s basketball team, sued Penn State and head coach Michael Rhoades alleging that defamatory statements made during and after his removal from the team damaged his reputation and derailed his basketball career. According to the amended complaint, tensions arose after Clary declined to sign a proposed Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) contract that he believed undervalued him. Clary alleged that after refusing the NIL agreement, he was subjected to retaliation by the coaching staff. In early 2024, Clary also suffered a concussion that caused him to miss classes and assignments with medical approval.
Clary alleged that after he was suspended and later dismissed from the basketball team, Rhoades made a series of false statements to staff, media members, recruiters, and others. These statements allegedly included claims that Clary and his father were motivated by money, that Clary improperly missed classes, that he was failing academically, and that Clary voluntarily chose to leave Penn State. Clary contended that these statements created a false stigma that he was a problem student-athlete, negatively impacted his ability to transfer, reduced his NIL value, and forced him to continue his basketball career at a less prestigious institution, causing financial and reputational harm.
Penn State and Rhoades moved to dismiss the defamation claim, arguing that Clary failed to plead the required elements with sufficient specificity. The Court explained that, under Pennsylvania law, a defamation claim must allege the substance of the defamatory statement, who made it, when it was made, to whom it was published, and how it caused harm. Applying that standard, the Court concluded that many of Clary’s allegations were too vague to proceed. General assertions that “derogatory statements” were made, or that false narratives were “spread,” without identifying the audience, timing, or specific content, were insufficient to state a claim.
However, the Court found that Clary plausibly alleged defamation as to two specific categories of statements allegedly made by Rhoades. First, the Court held that statements asserting that Clary’s father was seeking more money and that this was the reason Clary did not return to Penn State could reasonably be understood as defamatory statements about Clary himself, portraying him as greedy or disloyal. Second, the Court concluded that allegations that Rhoades told media outlets that Clary decided on his own to leave Penn State were sufficiently specific and plausibly defamatory at the pleading stage, given the alleged reputational and financial consequences.
The Court dismissed the remaining defamation allegations without prejudice, explaining that Clary might be able to cure the deficiencies by pleading additional facts. The Court also dismissed all defamation claims against Penn State itself, finding that Clary failed to adequately allege vicarious liability. Although Clary asserted that Rhoades was acting as an employee and agent of the University, the amended complaint did not allege facts showing that the statements were made within the scope of Rhoades’ employment or for the purpose of serving Penn State’s interests, both of which are required to impose vicarious liability under Pennsylvania law. The Court granted Clary leave to file a second amended complaint but cautioned that further amendments would be unlikely if the deficiencies were not cured.
Clary v. Pa. State Univ. (M.D.Pa. Dec. 2, 2025) 2025 LX 550701.
Note: This case emphasizes the importance of schools exercising caution in making public or third-party communications about student performance, discipline, or departures. In California, such conduct may lead to claims of defamation and invasion of privacy.