Emily Hodge and Genesis Kenney were freshmen at Spalding University during the 2022-2023 academic year and members of the women’s volleyball team. Taryn Glass was hired as the head volleyball coach shortly before the two players began attending the University.
The two players alleged that they experienced bullying from teammates, including exclusion from team-organized carpools to practices, exclusion of Hodge from activities during a team trip to Maine, and gossip about Hodge in the locker room and around campus. They also claimed that Glass fostered an environment that contributed to this bullying and occasionally participated in it herself. After complaining about the bullying following the trip to Maine, Hodge was allegedly benched by Glass in retaliation for her complaints.
Thereafter, Hodge joined the lacrosse team, but later suffered a hip injury, allegedly exacerbated by workouts at volleyball practice led by Glass.
Kenney also reportedly spoke up against Hodge’s treatment, but this resulted in alleged harassment from the team and reduced playing time. Both players claimed that their grades suffered due to anxiety and depression triggered by the bullying. Kenney was eventually dismissed from the team for poor grades in February 2023 and later withdrew from the University.
In July 2023, Hodge was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and as being on the autism spectrum. In August 2023, after informing Glass of this diagnosis, Hodge was allegedly benched for the entire season to focus on her mental health. A few weeks later, Hodge was kicked off the team, allegedly for starting rumors about teammates and not being a good fit for the team.
The two players brought several claims against the University, Glass, and other University administrators, including negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims.
Negligence
To establish negligence under Kentucky law, the players must allege: (1) duty of care, (2) breach of duty, (3) injury, and (4) legal causation.
Regarding the duty of care, the Court found that the players sufficiently alleged facts establishing that Glass owed a duty to exercise reasonable care as the head volleyball coach. The Court cited the “universal duty of care” principle in Kentucky law, which requires every person to exercise ordinary care in their activities to prevent foreseeable injury. The Court also cited the doctrine of voluntarily assumed duty, which applies when an individual has undertaken a duty to render the services. Here, the Court found that Glass owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in her position as head volleyball coach. She took the job as head coach voluntarily, and therefore undertook the role to render services to the team.
On the issue of breach, the Court found that the players presented several facts throughout the complaint that could plausibly constitute a breach of Glass’s duty to exercise ordinary care. These included allegations of Glass ignoring Hodge’s request to keep her mental health issues confidential and her conduct relating to Hodge’s hip injury.
The Court found that injury plausibly could have resulted from Glass’s actions, including emotional and psychological pain such as emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish, and Hodge’s exacerbated hip injury. In particular, the players plausibly alleged that for Glass’s conduct, Hodge’s teammates would not have been informed of Hodge’s specific mental health issues which furthered their alleged bullying of her. Similarly, Hodge’s hip injury would not have been exacerbated if not for Glass’s mandated sprint regiments.
Negligent Hiring and Supervision
The players also alleged that Glass was negligently hired and supervised by the University administrators.
For a negligent hiring and supervision claim, the plaintiffs must allege: (1) the employer knew or reasonably should have known that an employee was unfit for the job for which he was employed, and (2) the employee’s placement or retention at that job created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff. The Court found that players failed to meet this burden. They did not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate Glass was unfit for the job or that defendants knew of or had notice of Glass’s poor behavior. They asserted that Glass is a young coach without any collegiate head coaching experience and had no expertise, but they did not assert that Defendants knew or had notice of Glass’s poor or incompetent behavior.
For a negligent training and supervision claim, the plaintiffs must allege: (1) that the defendant knew or had reason to know of the employee’s harmful propensities; (2) that the employee injured the plaintiff; and (3) that the hiring, supervision, or retention of such an employee proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Here, the Court found that players failed to allege that the University administrators were aware of Glass’s alleged wrongdoing during the time it was taking place. Rather, the timeline of events showed that these administrators became involved only after the alleged bullying had occurred and Hodge and Kenney were removed from the team.
Disability Discrimination Claims
Hodge also brought claims for disability discrimination under Title III of the ADA and retaliation under Title III of the ADA.
Regarding the disability discrimination claim, the Court first established that the ADA applies to Spalding as a postgraduate private school. The Court then considered whether Hodge possessed a recognized disability under the ADA. The Court found that Hodge had stated a plausible claim for ADA discrimination. Hodge’s anxiety, which was known to Coach Glass, allegedly limited her ability to cope with teammates’ bullying. The Court viewed Glass’s decision to bench Hodge for the entire season due to her mental health issues as a plausible denial of Hodge’s opportunity to participate in or benefit from Spalding’s services based on her diagnosed anxiety. As Glass acted in her official capacity as a Spalding employee, the Court denied the University’s motion to dismiss the ADA disability discrimination claim.
For the retaliation claim, the Court found that Hodge had presented sufficient facts to support an ADA retaliation claim. The Court rejected the University’s argument that Hodge had not engaged in protected activity, noting that Hodge’s claim was not about being kicked off the team due to bullying, but rather due to her reactions to the bullying, including confiding in Glass about her mental diagnoses. The Court found the timeline of events presented by Hodge supported a plausible claim for retaliation, including being benched after disclosing her ADD and autism diagnoses, seeking reasonable accommodations, and subsequently being forced to run sprints despite a hip injury. Based on these factors, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the retaliation claim.
Hodge v. Spalding Univ., Inc. (W.D.Ky. Nov. 7, 2024, No. 3:24-CV-00156-GNS) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 202997.
Note: This case is an important reminder that an employee’s conduct can influence students and create additional liability for schools. The Court in this case found that the two players had plausibly alleged that the coach’s conduct fostered a team environment that contributed to the teammates’ bullying of them, including due to the coach’s failure to take action to stop the bullying and participating in the bullying herself.