40 Cal.App.5th 1077
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Three female minor taekwondo athletes alleged long-term sexual abuse by their coach, Marc Gitelman, occurring at events and accommodations for competitions sanctioned by USA Taekwondo (USAT) and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC).
- USAT is the national governing body for U.S. taekwondo; athletes must be USAT members and train with USAT-registered coaches. USAT adopted a formal "safe sport" code of conduct/ethics in 2013; plaintiffs allege substantial prior notice of coach sexual misconduct.
- Plaintiffs sued Gitelman, USAT, USOC and others for assault/battery (against Gitelman) and for negligence, negligent hiring/retention, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against USAT and USOC), plus derivative vicarious-liability theories (agency, employment, joint venture).
- Trial court sustained USAT’s and USOC’s demurrers without leave to amend and entered judgment of dismissal as to both organizations; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held USAT owed a duty to implement and enforce protective policies (reversing dismissal as to USAT’s direct negligence claim), but affirmed dismissal as to USOC and rejected plaintiffs’ derivative/vicarious-liability and IIED claims for failure to plead required elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USAT owed a duty to protect youth athletes from coach sexual abuse (direct negligence) | USAT had a special relationship with coaches/athletes (coach registration, control over coaching, ability to enact/enforce safe-sport rules) and therefore owed a duty to implement/enforce policies | USAT argued no duty because generally no duty to control third parties absent special relationship; policies were discretionary or too remote | Held: Reversed dismissal as to USAT. On the alleged facts USAT had a special relationship and Rowland factors support a duty to protect youth athletes by implementing/enforcing policies. |
| Whether USOC owed a duty to protect plaintiffs | USOC created and oversaw national governing bodies and required safe-sport programs, so it had authority and responsibility | USOC argued its control was indirect (over NGBs not individual coaches) and thus no special relationship or duty to plaintiffs | Held: Affirmed dismissal as to USOC. USOC’s regulatory authority over NGBs was too remote to create a special relationship or duty to control individual coaches. |
| Whether USAT/USOC are vicariously liable (agency, employment, joint venture, respondeat superior, ratification) for Gitelman’s acts | Plaintiffs alleged Gitelman acted as agent/employee or in a joint venture with defendants so organizations are derivatively liable | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to plead the essential elements of agency, employment, or joint venture (no facts showing control, profit-sharing, or authority to act for the organizations) | Held: Dismissal of derivative/vicarious-liability claims affirmed. Plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish agency, employment, or joint venture, and could not cure defects. |
| Whether plaintiffs alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against USAT/USOC | Defendants’ deliberate failure to prevent or promptly act on known abuse was extreme, outrageous, and intended or reckless as to causing distress | Defendants argued conduct was negligent at most and not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law; plaintiffs did not allege continued abuse after notice that would support IIED | Held: IIED claims insufficient. Court found failure to adopt policies was not per se extreme/outrageous; plaintiffs did not plead facts showing continued abuse after defendants had actual knowledge that would support IIED. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (landmark duty/special-relationship framework used in Rowland analysis)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (applies Rowland factors and special-relationship analysis to institutions with control over curricular activities)
- Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc., 8 Cal.App.5th 1118 (NGB can have special relationship and duty to protect youth athletes from coaches)
- Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 81 Cal.App.4th 377 (organization’s duty to protect minors in officially sanctioned activities; Rowland-factor analysis)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (general rule: no duty to control third parties absent special relationship)
- Barenborg v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, 33 Cal.App.5th 70 (limits on national organization liability where control over local chapter is insufficient to create duty)